Are Gill and Moldoveanu disingenuous or incompetent?

[Joy Christian]

So I still claim that Moldoveanu is both disingenuous and incompetent. And you can throw in the other character to that description also.

Fred, the main problem here is that these disingenuous characters keep spewing out nonsense about my model without ever having read my papers, let alone studying the references cited therein. Their error was spotted at once by Bill Schnieder a long time ago. Here is what Bill Schnieder wrote on Physics Forums several years ago:

"Richard Gill's refutation is not a new critique. It is essentially the same as one of the critiques advanced by a certain Florin Moldoveanu in the fall last year to which Joy Christian has already replied. It originates from a misunderstanding of Joy's framework which admittedly is not very easy to understand, especially for those who have blinders of one kind or another.

Gill thinks Joy is using a convoluted more difficult method to do a calculation and prefers a different method which ultimately leads him to a different result, not realizing/understanding that the calculation method Joy used is demanded by his framework. This is hardly a serious critique, not unlike his failed critique of Hess and Philipp. He should at least have read Joy's response to Moldoveanu which he apparently did not, since he does not cite or mention it. It's been available since October 2011, one-month after Moldoveanu posted his critique.

I remember Florin came here to boast about his critique and I pointed out his misunderstanding at the time in this thread:

"... you are missing the point because Joy Christian is not using handedness as a convention but as the hidden variable itself."

This is the same error Gill has made. See section (II) of Joy's response to Moldoveanu."

It is astonishing that, although Gill has now realized and admitted his mistake, Moldoveanu and Lockyer still continue to make the same mistake after all these years.

[FrediFizzx]

More nonsense that Gill has posted here.

Seems that Joy has radically changed his mind. So has Fred Diether. For a long time he has been saying that the only good CHSH bound is 4 but now he is following his master in trying to establish the Tsirelson bound 2 sqrt 2.

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=196

Seems these guys are impervious to *science*. Everything confirms Joy's theory, nothing contradicts it. They can change their mind 100% every year or so without their supporters noticing. It ain't physics. it really is a cargo cult. Pretty much marginalised, so physics does not have to fear.

Anyone following that thread on the forum can plainly see that Joy's model produces the bound of using counterfactual terms just like quantum theory does. So another perfect match for Joy's local realistic model to the predictions of QM. If you have dependent expectation terms in CHSH and use counterfactual terms, you can get the bound of . If the terms are completely independent, then the bound is 4.

What we are wondering is that if physics has nothing to fear, then why is Gill so obsessed with spreading lies and nonsense about Joy's model?

[Joy Christian]

What we are wondering is that if physics has nothing to fear, then why is Gill so obsessed with spreading lies and nonsense about Joy's model?

In fact several members of FQXi are engaged in outright scientific misconduct in broad daylight. In particular, Richard Gill, Scott Aaronson, and James Weatherall have been making blatantly bogus claims about my work despite the fact that their straw-man arguments have been repeatedly and comprehensively debunked by several people over the past years. That is scientific misconduct. It is designed to deliberately mislead the scientific community, as explained in this fine sociological analysis:

http://link.springer.com/article/10.100 ... 013-9433-8



In fact, Richard Gill is engaged in far worse activities for many years, designed to hoodwink the scientific community, as I have listed on my blog. Shame on you, FQXi.

[Joy Christian]

***
By the way, Richard Gill is still stalking me on the Internet. It seems he has stopped stalking Michel Fodje, but as yet haven't lost his obsession with me and my work.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

There has been a complaint by an anonymous poster (a certain "guest1202") that this thread contains incivility, including in its very title (which was written by me).

The anonymous poster may be forgiven, however, for he or she has no way of knowing what Richard Gill and some of his "friends" are up to behind the prying eyes of the Internet for the past four (if not eight) years. Their "civil" activities include smear, cyber-bullying, cyber-stalking, name-calling, sustained online harassment and lynch-mobbing, malicious letters writing to my academic superiors (such as to the President of my college at Oxford University), blocking my publications by lobbying to journal editors with bogus criticisms of my work and personal attacks on my character and academic affiliations, attempts to have my published papers retracted, online public calls to have my research funding blocked from academic institutions such as FQXi, blatantly lying online about some aspects of my work and spreading rumors, posting fake letters online supposedly from my former PhD advisor to denigrate my mathematical abilities, attempts to debilitate me personally, financially, and academically in order to eliminate the threat I pose to their vested interests, and fake-posting in my name (as if I had written them) to discredit me personally.

I should stress that I am not the only or the first victim of such activities, some of which may be classified as criminal (I have documentary evidence for all of these).

It is also interesting to me that in my experience over the past eight years most of who find some of my online rebuttals "uncivil" are invariably committed to the now debunked ideology inspired by Bell's theorem. Those who are opposed to the Bell-ideology tend to sympathize with me. I find this experience of mine quite revealing.

***