by **Joy Christian** » Sun Oct 16, 2016 7:46 am

***

This post concerns

this paper of mine which was published by Annals of Physics but later secretly removed from their website

without a whiff of notification to me.

The following note now appears in place of my previously published paper, followed by 12 blank pages:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 1616300975The following statement is

My Response to the Withdrawal Statement by the Editors of Annals of Physics:

The withdrawal by Annals of Physics of my paper entitled “Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime” is scientifically flawed. It is motivated by political and ideological reasons without any scientific basis. In this Response I provide evidence to prove that the withdrawal of my paper is scientifically flawed.

The Editors of Annals of Physics have justified the withdrawal of my published paper citing two reasons:

(1) "... several experts in the field contacted the Editors to report errors."

(2) "... [my] results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact ..."

Both of their claimed reasons are demonstrably false. Below I prove this fact by providing detailed references:

(1) Fallacious and misleading reports of errors in my paper:

There are no errors in my paper, of any kind. The Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any evidence for their claim of errors. The only individual who has publicly claimed to have reported errors in my paper is Richard D. Gill, who is not an "expert" on the subject discussed in my paper. He is a statistician, not a physicist or a mathematician, and who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper in his lifetime on Clifford Algebra or General Relativity on which my paper is based. In my personal experience in dealing with Richard D. Gill I have found him to exhibit extreme difficulties in understanding some of the most basic concepts in elementary physics and algebraic mathematics. Several scholars have independently shown that some of Gill's papers on the related subject of Bell's theorem contain elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes. For example, see the following references, which only provide a very small sample of his numerous and frequent mistakes:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B4 ... 22#fb27706

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... al_Reality

More importantly, Gill's claims of errors in my paper have been repeatedly debunked, not only by me, but also by other scholars, in published preprints and online postings (cf. the references below, which provide only a small sample of Gill's mathematical and conceptual mistakes concerning the concepts presented in my paper).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6808

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/ ... jcrg-3.pdf

I very much doubt that any other credible “expert” ever reported errors in my paper. In any case, the Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any irrefutable evidence of supposed errors in my paper (despite my repeated requests). Considering my experience in dealing with the journal and its publisher over the past few months, I have no reason to believe the journal or its Editors about anything they may tell me without proof.

(2) Fallacious claim of conflict with a proven scientific fact:

My results are not in conflict with a proven scientific fact. The following is a numerical plot of the analytical function -cos(a, b) versus the correlation prediction E(a, b) = -cos(a, b) of my local model, simulated using a geometric algebra based computing program. This simulation is publicly available, with the online links to the code and the codes for other event-based numerical simulations of the predictions of my model, referenced in my withdrawn paper. As anyone can verify, there is a perfect match between the predictions of my local model and the predictions of quantum mechanics, which have been verified in the "loophole-free" experiments. The one-to-one matching between the predictions of my local model and the observed (or "proven") experimental facts is not only verified independently, in several publicly available numerical simulations, but also rigorously derived in my paper analytically, using at least two different analytical methods. Given all this overwhelming and publicly available evidence, it is mind-boggling why the Editors of Annals of Physics blatantly claim that my "results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact." They have made a demonstrably false claim.

Since both reasons given for withdrawal by the Editors of Annals of Physics are baseless, their action amounts to unjustified slander, which has already led to severe defamation and dilution of my reputation as a scientist.

Joy Christian

17 October 2016

Oxford, England

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The above response of mine is to the revised withdrawal statement posted online by Elsevier on behalf of Annals of Physics in place of my previously published paper:

The publisher Elsevier keeps changing the statement in order to protect themselves from any legal challenge. For example, the previous statement was quite cryptic:

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

***

This post concerns [url=https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355]this paper of mine[/url] which was published by Annals of Physics but later secretly removed from their website [url=http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283#p6766]without a whiff of notification to me[/url].

The following note now appears in place of my previously published paper, followed by 12 blank pages: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0003491616300975

[img]http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/Withdrawn.png[/img]

The following statement is [size=150][color=#FF0000]My Response to the Withdrawal Statement by the Editors of Annals of Physics:[/color]

The withdrawal by Annals of Physics of my paper entitled “Local causality in a Friedmann-Robertson-Walker spacetime” is [color=#FF0000]scientifically flawed[/color]. It is motivated by political and ideological reasons without any scientific basis. In this Response I provide evidence to prove that the withdrawal of my paper is scientifically flawed.

The Editors of Annals of Physics have justified the withdrawal of my published paper citing two reasons:

(1) "... several experts in the field contacted the Editors to report errors."

(2) "... [my] results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact ..."

Both of their claimed reasons are demonstrably false. Below I prove this fact by providing detailed references:

[color=#FF0000](1) Fallacious and misleading reports of errors in my paper:[/color]

[color=#FF0000]There are no errors in my paper, of any kind. [/color] The Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any evidence for their claim of errors. The only individual who has publicly claimed to have reported errors in my paper is Richard D. Gill, who is [b][i][u]not[/u][/i][/b] an "expert" on the subject discussed in my paper. He is a statistician, not a physicist or a mathematician, and who has not published a single peer-reviewed paper in his lifetime on Clifford Algebra or General Relativity on which my paper is based. In my personal experience in dealing with Richard D. Gill I have found him to exhibit extreme difficulties in understanding some of the most basic concepts in elementary physics and algebraic mathematics. Several scholars have independently shown that some of Gill's papers on the related subject of Bell's theorem contain elementary mathematical and conceptual mistakes. For example, see the following references, which only provide a very small sample of his numerous and frequent mistakes:

https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B475C637F666CC1D3E3A314522#fb27706

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299533064_EPR_Paradox_Quantum_Nonlocality_and_Physical_Reality

More importantly, Gill's claims of errors in my paper have been repeatedly debunked, not only by me, but also by other scholars, in published preprints and online postings (cf. the references below, which provide only a small sample of Gill's mathematical and conceptual mistakes concerning the concepts presented in my paper).

http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

http://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=271#p6808

https://jayryablon.files.wordpress.com/2016/10/jcrg-3.pdf

I very much doubt that any other credible “expert” ever reported errors in my paper. In any case, the Editors of Annals of Physics have not provided any irrefutable evidence of supposed errors in my paper (despite my repeated requests). Considering my experience in dealing with the journal and its publisher over the past few months, I have no reason to believe the journal or its Editors about anything they may tell me without proof.

(2) [color=#FF0000]Fallacious claim of conflict with a proven scientific fact:[/color]

[color=#FF0000]My results are not in conflict with a proven scientific fact.[/color] The following is a numerical plot of the analytical function -cos(a, b) versus the correlation prediction E(a, b) = -cos(a, b) of my local model, simulated using a geometric algebra based computing program. This simulation is publicly available, with the online links to the code and the codes for [url=http://rpubs.com/jjc/84238]other event-based numerical simulations[/url] of the predictions of my model, referenced in my withdrawn paper. As anyone can verify, there is a perfect match between the predictions of my local model and the predictions of quantum mechanics, which have been verified in the "loophole-free" experiments. The one-to-one matching between the predictions of my local model and the observed (or "proven") experimental facts is not only verified independently, in several publicly available numerical simulations, but also rigorously derived in my paper analytically, using at least two different analytical methods. Given all this overwhelming and publicly available evidence, it is mind-boggling why the Editors of Annals of Physics blatantly claim that my "results are in obvious conflict with a proven scientific fact." [color=#FF0000]They have made a demonstrably false claim.[/color]

[img]http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/download/ajw360plot9deg.jpg[/img]

Since both reasons given for withdrawal by the Editors of Annals of Physics are baseless, their action amounts to unjustified slander, which has already led to severe defamation and dilution of my reputation as a scientist.

Joy Christian

17 October 2016

Oxford, England

[/size]

**************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************

The above response of mine is to the revised withdrawal statement posted online by Elsevier on behalf of Annals of Physics in place of my previously published paper:

The publisher Elsevier keeps changing the statement in order to protect themselves from any legal challenge. For example, the previous statement was quite cryptic:

[img]http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/AOP-Pub.png[/img]

***************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************************