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 Joy Christian » Sun Sep 08, 2019 6:56 am

gill1109 wrote:
As long as the author is secretive as to the content, we wait on tenterhooks to see what he has come [up] with this time. I hope it will be available before our workshop and symposium.

I have very good sociological and political reasons to remain secretive about the contents and publication details of my upcoming paper. All will be revealed once the paper appears in print.

***

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

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:26 pm

I'm temporarily locking this thread since there is no discussion of the actual physics of the paper happening.
.

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

Post by local » Fri Sep 06, 2019 12:01 pm

They need to wrap up the "investigation" and publish the results, and then retract the expression of concern.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:58 am

local wrote:
That seems fair and reasonable. The secretive "investigation" has gone on a long time at RSOS. What is their game?

The RSOS investigation was triggered by nine months of daily attacks on my paper by Richard D. Gill. But their investigation has revealed that Gill's attacks were wrong and often ludicrous.

***

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

Post by local » Fri Sep 06, 2019 11:45 am

That seems fair and reasonable. The secretive RSOS "investigation" impugning JC has gone on too long.

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

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:53 am

local wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:OK guys, let's get back on topic here by discussing some actual content details of the paper.
.

I'm confused. Isn't that what has been happening, i.e., discussion of the reviewer's criticisms of the paper?

Sorry, but I don't see any actual detail's from reviewer's comments thus no real discussion.
.

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

Post by local » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:37 am

FrediFizzx wrote:OK guys, let's get back on topic here by discussing some actual content details of the paper.
.

I'm confused. Isn't that what has been happening, i.e., discussion of the reviewer's criticisms of the paper?

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

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:31 am

OK guys, let's get back on topic here by discussing some actual content details of the paper.
.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 06, 2019 10:05 am

Heinera wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I heard on the grapevine that the RSOS editors have received new reviews on JJ Christian's RSOS paper, following their publication of an expression of concern. I should hope that the author will be (or already was) the first to know their content.

Ok, I heard that they had difficulties recruiting reviewers that would even take the job. But anyway the original five reviews should suffice for the editorial board to see that the acceptance was a mistake.

On the contrary, the erroneous arguments by the original five reviewers and by the new reviewer are sufficient for anyone to see that the acceptance of my paper was completely justified.

The acceptance of Bell's paper by the dubious journal "Physics" that died after just one issue is another matter. Bell's erroneous paper would not have been accepted by any reputed journal.

***

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

Post by Heinera » Fri Sep 06, 2019 9:29 am

gill1109 wrote:I heard on the grapevine that the RSOS editors have received new reviews on JJ Christian's RSOS paper, following their publication of an expression of concern. I should hope that the author will be (or already was) the first to know their content.

Ok, I heard that they had difficulties recruiting reviewers that would even take the job. But anyway the original five reviews should suffice for the editorial board to see that the acceptance was a mistake.

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

Post by FrediFizzx » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:52 am

Yablon wrote:Keep in mind that the workshop and symposium is intended to remove all this debate from the Internet, and rather have it in person in a collegial environment which may help to resolve these long-standing disputes.

Yes, this back and forth on the forum doesn't accomplish anything. Please refrain from doing it.
.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:50 am

gill1109 wrote:
I'm afraid that Dr Christian's latest paper may be immune to retraction, but this doesn't make it immune to being wrong! Nor does it prevent publication by others of a refutation.

The same holds for Dr. Bell's papers, which are immune to retractions because of sociology and politics, but have been repeatedly shown to be wrong: https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.02876.

***

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

Post by Yablon » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:34 am

Keep in mind that the workshop and symposium is intended to remove all this debate from the Internet, and rather have it in person in a collegial environment which may help to resolve these long-standing disputes.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Fri Sep 06, 2019 8:31 am

gill1109 wrote:
It should be mentioned that ... IJTP also published, after peer review, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10773-015-2657-4 an IJTP paper by myself ...

This paper by Richard D. Gill contains numerous mathematical and conceptual mistakes, which I have exposed in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Image
Image

As I recall, IJTP editors were bullied into publishing Gill's erroneous paper after months of harassing both me online and the editors of IJTP off-line. Indeed, that was the first of my papers which was attacked by Gill with the intention of having it retracted. But the editor of IJTP, the late Prof. David Finkelstein, had refused to retract my paper despite huge political pressure.

***

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

Post by gill1109 » Fri Sep 06, 2019 7:38 am

Joy Christian wrote:I rather publish my papers in established and reputable journals. One paper on Bell is published in IJTP. Another on Bell is published in RSOS. One more on Bell is coming up in a reputable journal. And the Octonion-like paper is under review by a mathematics journal.
...
I should add that my latest paper refuting Bell's theorem that is soon to be published in a reputed peer-reviewed journal will be immune to retraction. As some readers of this forum know, there have been persistent attempts to retract at least three of my published refutations of Bell's theorem over the past decade. But once published, the latest paper, soon to be published, will be immune to retraction. Indeed, that was one of my criteria for selecting the journal where it will be published. It also addresses all unfounded criticisms of my local model in detail.

I'm afraid that Dr Christian's latest paper may be immune to retraction, but this doesn't make it immune to being wrong! Nor does it prevent publication by others of a refutation.

As long as the author is secretive as to the content, we wait on tenterhooks to see what he has come with this time. I hope it will be available before our workshop and symposium.

I heard on the grapevine that the RSOS editors have received new reviews on JJ Christian's RSOS paper, following their publication of an expression of concern. I should hope that the author will be (or already was) the first to know their content.

It should be mentioned that the once reputable journal IJTP also published, after peer review, an IJTP paper by myself refuting the IJTP paper of dr. Christian. I am surprised that they did not publish a response by the author. He certainly posted a response on arXiv. It seems they did not wish to arouse any controversy.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:32 am

Heinera wrote:
I think that insisting on the paper being immune to retraction is a brilliant idea. I wish more authors would have thought of this.

Most authors, at least in physics and mathematics, do not have to worry about retraction; because most authors are not hounded relentlessly by dogmatic Bell-believers, for over a decade.

***

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

Post by Heinera » Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:09 am

I think that insisting on the paper being immune to retraction is a brilliant idea. I wish more authors would have thought of this.

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

Post by Joy Christian » Thu Sep 05, 2019 12:50 am

Joy Christian wrote:
I rather publish my papers in established and reputable journals. One paper on Bell is published in IJTP. Another on Bell is published in RSOS. One more on Bell is coming up in a reputable journal. And the Octonion-like paper is under review by a mathematics journal.

I should add that my latest paper refuting Bell's theorem that is soon to be published in a reputed peer-reviewed journal will be immune to retraction. As some readers of this forum know, there have been persistent attempts to retract at least three of my published refutations of Bell's theorem over the past decade. But once published, the latest paper, soon to be published, will be immune to retraction. Indeed, that was one of my criteria for selecting the journal where it will be published. It also addresses all unfounded criticisms of my local model in detail.

***

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

Post by Joy Christian » Sun Aug 25, 2019 2:06 am

***
I rather publish my papers in established and reputable journals. One paper on Bell is published in IJTP. Another on Bell is published in RSOS. One more on Bell is coming up in a reputable journal. And the Octonion-like paper is under review by a mathematics journal.

***

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

Post by gill1109 » Sun Aug 25, 2019 1:42 am

Joy Christian wrote:The more interesting observation here is that you [Heinera] are not able to point out any error in any of my equations in the paper.

That was my role. Naturally, Joy presented what he considered a rebuttal of every single one of my criticisms.

I still think it would be a nice idea to edit and jointly publish our exchanges on the RSOS site. It's such a pain searching on the website for the particular postings which discuss specific possible errors, and it is not possible to automatically download the complete discussion. I did make a start on this, I do now have one file with the complete discussion. It was a long and annoying task to put it together. If anyone wants to see it, just let me know.

Alternatively, I suggest that Joy publishes his mathematical paper on https://researchers.one/. A lively critical discussion which is well organised and formatted will draw attention to the paper and its content. A paper which claims to revolutionize quantum mechanics, and another which claims to revolutionize abstract algebra, need fair and careful and transparent evaluation.

Top

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library