Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[flash] is OFF
[url] is ON
Smilies are OFF
Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Thu May 30, 2019 9:38 am

gill1109 wrote:
jreed wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

Thanks Jim!

All thanks to the enormous efforts and sublime patience of Jay Yablon, and thanks to the graciousness of Joy and Fred!

I meant: John.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by FrediFizzx » Tue May 21, 2019 6:51 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

The paper was retracted after some bogus complaint of "errors" in it was sent to the editors of Annals of Physics. But the journal failed to provide me any evidence of error, even privately, and even after repeated requests from me. I have documented the full context of the shoddy behavior of the journal in this regard in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=8139#p6853

I have also summarized my response to various criticisms of my paper that could have been sent to the journal in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Considering the gross injustice done to the paper and the setback that has inflicted to the foundations of physics, it is only fair that the paper is now being reconsidered for publication.

***

Good luck with it, Joy.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Sat May 18, 2019 9:16 pm

jreed wrote:
gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

Thanks Jim!

All thanks to the enormous efforts and sublime patience of Jay Yablon, and thanks to the graciousness of Joy and Fred!

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by jreed » Sat May 18, 2019 10:14 am

gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sat May 18, 2019 9:46 am

gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

The paper was retracted after some bogus complaint of "errors" in it was sent to the editors of Annals of Physics. But the journal failed to provide me any evidence of error, even privately, and even after repeated requests from me. I have documented the full context of the shoddy behavior of the journal in this regard in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=8139#p6853

I have also summarized my response to various criticisms of my paper that could have been sent to the journal in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Considering the gross injustice done to the paper and the setback that has inflicted to the foundations of physics, it is only fair that the paper is now being reconsidered for publication.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by gill1109 » Fri May 17, 2019 10:34 pm

Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Thu May 16, 2019 11:16 am

Heinera wrote:Whatever. But you should stop your attempts at publishing, because having a paper published and then retracted is much, much worse for your reputation than not having attempted to publish. And you already had one retracted.

But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.

Thanks for your concern, but my reputation is of no significance. What is important is that junk like "Bell's theorem" must be exposed at whatever cost, together with the stupidity of the intellectual lightweights who continue to believe in it. For this reason, I have submitted this paper to a very prominent journal with a policy of not retracting a paper once it is published.

I will, of course, announce the details on this forum and elsewhere as soon as the above paper is published. From now on I will be publishing my papers in journals which cannot be bullied.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Thu May 16, 2019 10:40 am

Whatever. But you should stop your attempts at publishing, because having a paper published and then retracted is much, much worse for your reputation than not having attempted to publish. And you already had one retracted.

But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Mon May 13, 2019 9:58 am

Heinera wrote:Sure. But we all know how these "investigations" end. I just hope you get your money back.

I did not have to pay any publication fee to RSOS, so there is no question of getting anything back from them. And Bell's dead theorem will not be resurrected even if my paper is retracted. More than fourteen thousand people have already read my paper, so the cat is out of the bag. Only extremely stupid may continue to believe in Bell's theorem after having read my paper.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Mon May 13, 2019 9:21 am

Joy Christian wrote:I do not see any mention by RSOS of "retraction" or "withdrawal." Some extremely stupid comments have been posted about my paper by a few extremist Bell-believers (because they are petrified of my repudiation of Bell's so-called theorem), and therefore the journal is naturally obliged to investigate the matter following the standard COPE protocol.
***

Sure. But we all know how these "investigations" end. I just hope you get your money back.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sun May 12, 2019 2:52 pm

Heinera wrote:Seems like RSOS has started a retraction process for the paper.

"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."

I do not see any mention by RSOS of "retraction" or "withdrawal." Some extremely stupid comments have been posted about my paper by a few extremist Bell-believers (because they are petrified of my repudiation of Bell's so-called theorem), and therefore the journal is naturally obliged to investigate the matter following the standard COPE protocol.

Incidentally, so far my paper has been downloaded over fourteen thousand times from the journal's website. Thus, it is no wonder that some Bell-believers are petrified of my paper.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Sun May 12, 2019 1:56 pm

Seems like RSOS has started a retraction process for the paper.

"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by minkwe » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:29 am

Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!




troll
noun [ C ] (COMPUTING)
- someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble.

​https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/troll

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:18 am

Joy Christian wrote:Why don't you ask her yourself?
***

I did. She didn't answer.

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Mon Apr 15, 2019 10:08 am

Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!

Disgrace indeed! Why don't you ask her yourself? She is a public figure who doesn't owe me or my work any special treatment. No one is obliged to mention my "substantial paper" anywhere.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Heinera » Mon Apr 15, 2019 9:58 am

I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:54 pm

Q-reeus wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.
***

I take it then you have never explored the consequences of S^3 intrinsic torsion on Newtonian dynamics, beyond just correlations?

It is irrelevant for the success of the experiment in question whether I have or have not explored other consequences of the S^3 geometry.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Q-reeus » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:32 pm

Joy Christian wrote:Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.
***

I take it then you have never explored the consequences of S^3 intrinsic torsion on Newtonian dynamics, beyond just correlations?

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Joy Christian » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:35 pm

Q-reeus wrote:If indeed our universe is permeated by a physically real, intrinsic, intensive non-zero torsion, it's just not credible that the sole effect is to generate strong quantum correlations in macroscopic, classical physics analogs to Bell-type experiments. There should be a host of more general classical physics effects distinguishing S^3 reality from R^3 flat-land expectations. Demonstrable examples, with explicit formulae please.

Nature does not behave according to what is credible to you. I have made an educated prediction. My prediction is that strong correlations will be observed in my proposed experiment.

***

Re: Royal Society has Accepted my Disproof of Bell's Theorem

Post by Q-reeus » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:26 pm

If indeed our universe is permeated by a physically real, intrinsic, intensive non-zero torsion, it's just not credible that the sole effect is to generate strong quantum correlations in macroscopic, classical physics analogs to Bell-type experiments. There should be a host of more general classical physics effects distinguishing S^3 reality from R^3 flat-land expectations. Demonstrable examples, with explicit formulae please.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library