Richard Gill owes me 10,000 Euros + profuse apologies

[Joy Christian]

***
It appears that Richard D. Gill has once again resorted to his usual, dirty, unethical tactics behind-the-scenes and is once again tying to block one of my papers from being published in Annals of Physics. Here is the "Article in Press" copy of the paper if anyone is curious to see: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/l ... 3-2-14.pdf.

He has of course tried to block this very paper from being published in Nature before, as I have noted on this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=111&p=4672#p4666.

From my comments in the above thread you can see that "thrash and steal" is the strategy Gill has frequently employed to build his career, as I have noted before:

Larsson and Gill simply stole the ideas from Hess and Philipp, after trying to thrash them first. It is as simple as that. In fact Gill’s modus operandi for his entire career has been to “thrash and steal" other people’s intellectual property, similar to the modus operandi “divide and conquer” of the colonizing Englishmen.

Here is an account by Prof. Karl Hess in his own words about how Gill harassed him and Walter Philipp for years, and tried to thrash their work before stealing it: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=49&p=2545&hilit=third+rate#p2545.

And here is an account of how Gill harassed and cyber-stalked Michel Fodje, in Michel's own words, and then tried to steal Michel's original simulation, calling it something else: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=179&start=20#p4788.

The irony is that Gill is mathematically extremely incompetent. He frequently makes very elementary mathematical mistakes, as I have pointed out in this paper in considerable detail. He has spent over nine years to understand my work based on geometric algebra but still has not understood even some of the basic concepts of geometric algebra. And he is a statistician, not a physicist, so his grasp of physics is non-existent. He tries to make up for his deficiencies and incompetence by being aggressive and deceitful, and by resorting to dirty underhand tactics behind-the-scenes, such as trying to block my papers from being published, just as he had tried in the past to block Prof. Hess's papers from being published. His decades of unethical tactics have gone unnoticed because most academics are too timid to do anything.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
A new paper by the sociologist Prof. Brian Martin has been published which brings out the unethical "degradation tactics" often used by the likes of Richard D. Gill to undermine the scientific credibility and academic credentials of those who they perceive to be a threat to their vested interests. Gill, however, usually employs much more vulgar tactics to undermine his intellectual superiors compared to the similar methods Prof. Martin has discussed and classified.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Has karma finally caught up with Richard Gill (or Richard D. Gill, or Richard David Gill)? Just wondering. If it hasn't, then it will. It always does, eventually.

***

[lkcl]

***
A new paper by the sociologist Prof. Brian Martin has been published which brings out the unethical "degradation tactics" often used by the likes of Richard D. Gill to undermine the scientific credibility and academic credentials of those who they perceive to be a threat to their vested interests. Gill, however, usually employs much more vulgar tactics to undermine his intellectual superiors compared to the similar methods Prof. Martin has discussed and classified.

***

this is quite interesting, it is similar to my sister's paper - as an archaeologist and anthropologist - on *archaeologist's* attitudes towards death. nobody had ever asked the question before! by not bowing down to the pressure and by providing publicly-documented evidence you're empowering qualified researchers with material so as to be able to study what's going on and bring it to a wider audience.

... have you considered adding a link to that paper into your .signature file in all public communications, specifically those involving these specific individuals? i would not recommend adding it to *all* communication as i recall the raather wise phrase, "what you focus on grows"...

[Joy Christian]

"...by not bowing down to the pressure and by providing publicly-documented evidence you're empowering qualified researchers with material so as to be able to study what's going on and bring it to a wider audience."

All thanks to the Internet. When I posted my first anti-Bell paper on the physics arXiv, the Internet was already well established and the arXiv moderators had not yet become as control-freaks as they have now become. As a result, the Bell mafia was caught off-guard. Before the Internet, my earlier preprints (now available on the physics arXiv) would not have seen the light of day because they would have been heavily suppressed by anonymous referees and robotic editors of physics journals.

Interesting suggestion about adding that sociology paper into my signature file. I will think about that. Although I have already exposed the Bell mafia on this forum.

***

[lkcl]

i don't think this got through, maybe cross-post, joy (and others) have you encountered this before?
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/ ... f_Bell.pdf

it's hilarious... but importantly it explains how the assumptions made by bell are masking... something-or-other, but it's *really* important to understand where he went wrong.

[Joy Christian]

i don't think this got through, maybe cross-post, joy (and others) have you encountered this before?
https://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/ ... f_Bell.pdf

it's hilarious... but importantly it explains how the assumptions made by bell are masking... something-or-other, but it's *really* important to understand where he went wrong.

Yes, I have seen this paper before. Sadly, he does not have a local model of the singlet correlations despite his claim to have one. Much of his criticism of Bell is also quite misplaced. There is much noise in the paper but no signal. The mistake Bell made is not so easy to spot. I have explained my take on his mistake in this paper.

***

[Q-reeus]

Regarding the article linked to in viewtopic.php?f=6&p=7929&sid=2e9969d319c544eb5c2eb43ee3ba9b92#p7928
There is so much wrong with eqn (2) and from then it's misapplication in ensuing boxed 'energy exchange theorem', I decided it not worth reading the rest. Atrocious.

[Joy Christian]

Regarding the article linked to in viewtopic.php?f=6&p=7929&sid=2e9969d319c544eb5c2eb43ee3ba9b92#p7928
There is so much wrong with eqn (2) and from then it's misapplication in ensuing boxed 'energy exchange theorem', I decided it not worth reading the rest. Atrocious.

Ha... I didn't even notice that equation. Because none of that discussion has anything to do with Bell's argument. Bell's claim is quite simple. It does not involve any physics at all. He claimed that for local functions A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/=1, where h is a shared randomness between Alice and Bob and a and b are freely chosen experimental parameters, it is mathematically impossible to reproduce the averages < AB > = -a.b, < A > = 0, and < B > = 0 predicted by quantum mechanics for the singlet state. Anyone who wants to claim otherwise must explicitly write down local functions A(a, h) and B(b, h) exhibiting the above averages. You are free to choose whatever physics and mathematics you like --- even completely wrong physics if you like --- to do so. If you succeed, then you have refuted Bell. But that paper does not come even close to reproducing the averages < AB > = -a.b, < A > = 0, and < B > = 0 for a pair of local functions A(a, h) = +/-1 and B(b, h) = +/=1.

***

[Joy Christian]

***

Will no one rid me of this meddlesome third-rater?

***

[minkwe]

What's he up to now?

[Joy Christian]

What's he up to now?

Can't say here. Let's just say, his usual tricks. I have sent you more info in an e-mail.

***

[Joy Christian]

***
Quite understandably, some flatlanders are in despair over this little paper: http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/ ... eytype=ref.

Since Earth looks flat to these flatlanders, they think Earth is indeed flat, and anyone who claims otherwise must be a c****pot.

***

[Heinera]

Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?

[FrediFizzx]

Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?

What would you like to discuss? It is quite remarkable that 7-spheres can be constructed from the Euclidean primitives.

[Heinera]

Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?

What would you like to discuss? It is quite remarkable that 7-spheres can be constructed from the Euclidean primitives.

No, I'm done discussing. Just enquiring "Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?"

[Heinera]

Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?

What would you like to discuss? It is quite remarkable that 7-spheres can be constructed from the Euclidean primitives.

No, I'm done discussing. Just enquiring "Is there any discussion at all about this paper, except for the few comments on the rsos website?"

After some googling, let me answer my own question: I haven't found anything.

[Joy Christian]

After some googling, let me answer my own question: I haven't found anything.

Heinera, tell us where YOUR papers are being discussed, or PUBLISHED for that matter, IF you have written any.

***

[Heinera]

After some googling, let me answer my own question: I haven't found anything.

Heinera, tell us where YOUR papers are being discussed, or PUBLISHED for that matter, IF you have written any.

***

What has that got to do with this? Out of interest, I was simply searching for any discussions about this paper in physics blogs etc., and reported the negative findings.

But, given that there are about one million scientific papers published every year, it is not easy for an article to get attention. You will probably need to attend some conferences.

[Joy Christian]

After some googling, let me answer my own question: I haven't found anything.

Heinera, tell us where YOUR papers are being discussed, or PUBLISHED for that matter, IF you have written any.

***

What has that got to do with this? Out of interest, I was simply searching for any discussions about this paper in physics blogs etc., and reported the negative findings.

But, given that there are about one million scientific papers published every year, it is not easy for an article to get attention. You will probably need to attend some conferences.

Over the past eleven years I have learned the hard way that no amount of discussion or conference talks can liberate a fanatic Bell-believer from his stupidity (and it is always a "he").

***