Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physics

Foundations of physics and/or philosophy of physics, and in particular, posts on unresolved or controversial issues

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:27 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:It's obviously my opinion that the paper shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.


Please point out the exact fatal flaw in the paper as to why it shouldn't be published. I don't see it. And I want your "opinion" not anyone else's opinion.

I have answered that question many times. Just do a search for my posts in this forum. :D
Last edited by Heinera on Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:35 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Here is a simple question for Joy:

According to (55), A(a, lambda) = +1 if lambda = +1, A(a, lambda) = -1 if lambda = -1

What is the role of a in this expression? Do you mean that A(a, lambda) is always +1 if lambda is +1, or could some vaule of a make A(a, lambda) equal -1 even when lambda = +1?

I have answered all of your questions many times. You can find the definitions of all the functions and all the variables in my paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

***

Another nonanswer duly noted.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Sun Oct 02, 2016 12:37 pm

Heinera wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:It's obviously my opinion that the paper shouldn't have been accepted in the first place.


Please point out the exact fatal flaw in the paper as to why it shouldn't be published. I don't see it. And I want your "opinion" not anyone else's opinion.

I have answered that question many times. Just do a search for my posts in this forum.

I'm not going to do a search and it is not a question. You do the search and post it here or a link to it here. You made the claim so now back it up.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Oct 02, 2016 8:40 pm

***
In one of my previous posts I have criticised the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics as either grossly negligent or outright incompetent. I am also fairly certain that both ideology and politics played significant roles in their decision to remove my paper from their website. However, in my experience most scientists are good and honest people, with strong commitment to scientific integrity. And I have no reason to doubt that the same is true of the entire editorial team of Annals of Physics.

By contrast, in my entire life I have never had the misfortune of dealing with an individual as deceitful, two-faced, thieving, and bullying as Richard D. Gill.

But what about Elsevier, the publisher of Annals of Physics? Well, they have not only lied through their teeth as I have pointed out in my initial post in this thread, but also seems have committed a serious fraud. Needless to say, the main objective of Elsevier is money, money, and money. They promised to publish this paper of mine in my name when they asked me to handover copyrights for it, but then they secretly published a totally different paper in my name without even a hint of notification to me for more than two months, until I ignited a metaphoric fire under them. If that is not fraud then I don't know what is. :x

It is perhaps no coincidence then that Elsevier are based in Netherlands, with deep ties with the university where Richard D. Gill claims to have an academic position.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:05 am

***
In the "inadvertently not sent out" letter, supposedly written by the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics, one of the claims made is that
"...several experts in the field have sent us a correspondence to report the error in your manuscript."

At best, this claim can only be a half-truth. The only self-proclaimed unsolicited "expert" who may have sent "a correspondence to report error" can be the same old third-rate statistician Richard D. Gill. What makes him an "expert" who is qualified to judge my paper? He has never written (or is even capable of writing) a single paper on Clifford algebra, or on Einstein's theory of gravity (the FRW space-time I consider in my paper is a well known solution of Einstein's theory of gravity), or on any kind of physics, ever. At best he is just an incompetent third-rate statistician who frequently makes extremely elementary mathematical mistakes. Therefore it is outrageous to be deceived by his unsolicited ramblings as an opinion of an expert on my paper, which is concerned about one of the most profound problems in physics.

Richard D. Gill is an expert only in deception. :x

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 6:33 am

***
I just had a brief email exchange with Ivan Oransky of Retraction Watch which some of you (and especially Gill who lurks on this forum) may find amusing:

I had posted the following comment on the comments section of the Retraction Watch story linked at the beginning of this thread:

It is worth noting that Richard D. Gill has presented himself as an "expert" to both Annals of Physics and Retraction Watch about subjects in physics and mathematics he knows absolutely nothing about. He is a statistician, not a physicist. My paper, on the other hand, is a physics paper, which was published in Annals of Physics, which is a physics journal. My paper is based on Clifford algebra and a cosmological solution of Einstein's theory of gravity. Gill has absolutely no knowledge or competence in either of these subjects. What is more, his elementary mathematical mistakes have been repeatedly exposed by me and other genuine experts in the field --- see for example this paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 . Thus Gill fallaciously and disingenuously presented himself as an "expert" to Annals of Physics, and the Editorial Board seems to have taken his word without checking his background. At the least, this is highly unprofessional behaviour for any Editorial Board. To my eyes this fact alone proves beyond doubt that the secret removal of my paper from their website was entirely politically motivated without any scientific basis whatsoever.


This post triggered the following email exchange:

From: Ivan Oransky [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:03
To: joy.christian@einstein-physics.org
Subject: from Retraction Watch

Thanks for submitting the comment. So that we can approve it, can you provide evidence of where Gill "presented himself as an 'expert'"?

Ivan Oransky, MD
Vice President and Global Editorial Director, MedPage Today http://medpagetoday.com
Distinguished Writer in Residence, New York University's Arthur Carter Journalism Institute
Co-Founder, Retraction Watch http://retractionwatch.com
Vice President, Association of Health Care Journalists
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, New York University School of Medicine
http://twitter.com/ivanoransky
917-359-2113

On Tue, Oct 4, 2016 at 8:25 AM, Joy Christian <joy.christian@einstein-physics.org> wrote:

Hi Ivan,

It is right there in your story: “Gill told us he and others contacted the journal to raise concerns about the study.”
You can ask the journalist who wrote the story to find out why he interviewed Gill in the first place when Gill only
contacted the Journal as a non-expert layman. Why did the journal pay any attention to him at all when Gill only
presented himself as a non-expert layman. I think it is extraordinary of Annals of Physics to remove my paper
based on the misgivings of someone who raised concerns about a highly technical study only as a non-expert.

Joy Christian

From: ivansciam@gmail.com [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Ivan Oransky
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:35
To: Joy Christian
Subject: Re: from Retraction Watch

Thanks Joy. Whether one needs to be qualified as an "expert" to offer critiques is certainly an interesting question (on which we probably disagree), but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking for evidence that Gill presented himself as an expert, which you claim twice in your comment. That's different from whether or not the journal should have taken his critiques into consideration.

Ivan

From: "Joy Christian" <joy.christian@einstein-physics.org>
To: "Ivan Oransky" <ivan-oransky@erols.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 4, 2016 8:51:40 AM
Subject: RE: from Retraction Watch

Ivan,

I know exactly what you are asking for. You know very well that the journal which did not even inform me about the removal of my paper even after two months of repeated requests of clarification from me is hardly going to provide evidence of how Gill presented himself to them. To be sure, he didn’t present himself as a compulsive liar and a third-rate statistician with psychopathic tendencies, which would have been far more accurate. So, no, I cannot provide you “evidence” beyond quoting from your story and knowing how Gill presents himself to others. He is a criminal and you are protecting him, whether you realize it or not.

Joy

From: Ivan Oransky [mailto:ivansciam@gmail.com]
Sent: 04 October 2016 13:56
To: joy.christian@einstein-physics.org
Subject: from Retraction Watch

Thanks for responding, Joy. Regardless of why evidence may or may not be available, we leave the burden of providing evidence for claims in comments to commenters, so I'll leave it unapproved until you can send that evidence.

Best,
Ivan


I have long suspected that both PubPeer and Retraction Watch are in Gill's pockets. PubPeer, for example, frequently deleted my comments from their site, but allowed every transgression from Gill and his gang of delinquents. Here is an independent confirmation of this fact from someone who wrote to me recently:

I have observed the PubPeer platform "discussion" with Gill. The harassment he was allowed to engage in was also a fault of PubPeer, which offered a platform rich for abuse. ... PubPeer is in fact not moderated. It is allowed to fuel slander and hearsay, and that it is not an academic discussion platform or journal club. It is a smear site.

***

PS: Retraction Watch has approved a revised post from me:

It is worth noting that Richard D. Gill is by no means an “expert” on the physics and mathematics discussed in my paper. He is a statistician, not a physicist. My paper, on the other hand, is a physics paper, which was published in Annals of Physics, which is a physics journal. My paper is based on Clifford algebra and a cosmological solution of Einstein’s theory of gravity. Gill has absolutely no knowledge or competence in either of these subjects. For example, he has never published a single peer-reviewed paper in either of these subjects, even on the preprint arXiv, as anyone can easily verify. What is more, his elementary mathematical mistakes in his supposed critique of my work have been repeatedly exposed by me and other genuine experts in the field — see for example this paper:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 .

It is therefore astonishing that Annals of Physics seems to have taken his word without checking his background. At the least, this is highly unprofessional behaviour for any Editorial Board of a physics journal. To my eyes this fact alone proves beyond doubt that the secret removal of my paper from their website was entirely politically motivated, without any scientific basis whatsoever.


***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 10:38 am

***
Annals of Physics has removed the "Most Downloaded Articles" category from their website altogether, because it kept showing my paper on the top: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that evidence that they are lurking on this forum just like Gill is?

Image
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby thray » Tue Oct 04, 2016 12:21 pm

No surer sign of mismanagement, than attempting to erase history.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Yablon » Tue Oct 04, 2016 1:24 pm

thray wrote:No surer sign of mismanagement, than attempting to erase history.

All Joy is asking at this point, is for them to "erase" the "retraction" of his article so that it does not cast his scientific reputation in a negative light. Instead, so far at least, they are not erasing that, but are erasing the fact that this situation garnered more attention than anything else coming out of AOP at the moment. If Elsevier wants to do the politically and legally and ethically-smart thing, they should accede to Joy's request to remove the blank space which will kill two birds with one stone for them and allow everybody to move on. Jay
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:33 pm

Yablon wrote:
thray wrote:No surer sign of mismanagement, than attempting to erase history.

All Joy is asking at this point, is for them to "erase" the "retraction" of his article so that it does not cast his scientific reputation in a negative light. Instead, so far at least, they are not erasing that, but are erasing the fact that this situation garnered more attention than anything else coming out of AOP at the moment. If Elsevier wants to do the politically and legally and ethically-smart thing, they should accede to Joy's request to remove the blank space which will kill two birds with one stone for them and allow everybody to move on. Jay

Problem is probably that the publishing process had gotten to far when they decided to not publish the article. All subsequent papers had already gotten their doi with page numbers and everything. AFIAK noone has yet seen the printed issue; maybe they just skip page numbers without printing the pages, or assign new page numbers to subsequent articles.
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 2:47 pm

Heinera wrote:Problem is probably that the publishing process had gotten to far when they decided to not publish the article. All subsequent papers had already gotten their doi with page numbers and everything. AFIAK noone has yet seen the printed issue; maybe they just skip page numbers without printing the pages, or assign new page numbers to subsequent articles.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? May be I should buy them a bouquet of flowers or something. Perhaps a large box of chocolate. ;)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Heinera » Tue Oct 04, 2016 3:09 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Heinera wrote:Problem is probably that the publishing process had gotten to far when they decided to not publish the article. All subsequent papers had already gotten their doi with page numbers and everything. AFIAK noone has yet seen the printed issue; maybe they just skip page numbers without printing the pages, or assign new page numbers to subsequent articles.

Am I supposed to feel sorry for them? May be I should buy them a bouquet of flowers or something. Perhaps a large box of chocolate. ;)

***

Not at all. I'm only saying that it's not for malign reasons they are printing 12 blank pages, (if they are doing it at all. You should wait and see how the printed issue turns out).
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby FrediFizzx » Tue Oct 04, 2016 4:17 pm

Heinera wrote:Not at all. I'm only saying that it's not for malign reasons they are printing 12 blank pages, (if they are doing it at all. You should wait and see how the printed issue turns out).

That is absurd. They removed "Most Downloaded Articles" so they certainly and easily could remove the page where Joy's paper is supposed to be. And the link to it.

BTW, we ae still waiting for your "opinion" on the exact flaw in the paper as to why it shouldn't have been published in the first place. This paper went through rigorous peer-review and passed so I doubt that there is any flaw.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Yablon » Tue Oct 04, 2016 5:37 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:
Heinera wrote:Not at all. I'm only saying that it's not for malign reasons they are printing 12 blank pages, (if they are doing it at all. You should wait and see how the printed issue turns out).

That is absurd. They removed "Most Downloaded Articles" so they certainly and easily could remove the page where Joy's paper is supposed to be. And the link to it.

BTW, we ae still waiting for your "opinion" on the exact flaw in the paper as to why it shouldn't have been published in the first place. This paper went through rigorous peer-review and passed so I doubt that there is any flaw.

Once the print version comes out that horse is out of the barn, unless they reprint the issue for which I would not hold my breath. But they should be able to fix the web version no matter what, which over time is the one that in this day and age will be most referred to and utilized.
Yablon
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 365
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: New York

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Oct 04, 2016 8:30 pm

***
The email posted above by Marc N. Chahin, the person who claims to be the Executive "Publisher at Elsevier responsible for the journal Annals of Physics," writes

I also noted that the text presented in the journal now is not correct and we will rectify this.

So they clearly have the ability to "rectify" text technically, but are choosing not to. It is evident that for whatever reason they want to permanently defame me and stigmatise my work for eternity. It is clear that they want to make sure it is never published anywhere with credibility, and make sure that no one takes me seriously.

But let me help them out if that is indeed their purpose and intention. Since they are technically capable of altering text of what appears online on those pages, why not publish the supposed "serious major error" in my manuscript that has been identified presumably by Richard D. Gill? They can publish this in either his name, or to really put the final nail in my coffin, publish my "serious major error" in the name of the Editorial Board of Annals of Physics. With their enormous authority, they can completely and permanently destroy both my nine years of research and me, just as what they seem to be wanting. Just in case this has not occurred to them, here is their chance. They would then come out of this absolutely triumphant and vindicated in the most public and authoritative manner possible. So please, Make My Day. :)

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 05, 2016 4:42 am

***
Some of the new readers of this forum may not know this, but explicit counterexamples to Bell's theorem already exists in the established, peer-reviewed literature in addition to the article that was accepted and published by Annals of Physics until the Thought Police and Gestapo were mobilised. Following are but two examples: :)

Image

Image

More details about these referees (and on the politics and sociology within physics) can be found on my blog: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/e ... taphysics/.

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Oct 05, 2016 6:26 pm

***

I have updated the article on the arXiv and added the following paragraph which includes eight new equations: https://arxiv.org/abs/1405.2355.

Image

Among the many blessings of the Internet and social media is that we can trigger an Arab Spring no matter how brutal is the political suppression. :D

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby thray » Wed Oct 05, 2016 7:06 pm

The experiment must be done. There is no way to "interpret" a result out of it. In a clear foundational sense, the answer is yes or no, no matter what a consensus of physicists believe.

Science is not supposed to be about belief.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Oct 06, 2016 1:22 am

thray wrote:Science is not supposed to be about belief.

Sorry, Tom. Let alone belief, by screwing up royally Annals of Physics has let the cat out of the bag and proved to the world that much of modern physics is not about science but about dirty politics behind-the-scenes. This is not news to sociologists of science. The treatment I received from FQXi and Annals of Physics is just a tip of the iceberg. Anyone wanting to find out about how science really works should read this shocking article about the sugar versus fat conspiracy that has killed millions:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... ohn-yudkin

We would all like my proposed experiment to be done. But Bell-fanatics like Richard Gill are petrified of its potential outcome. Have you forgotten how desperately, maliciously and persistently Richard Gill tried for months to have my paper proposing the experiment retracted from the International Journal of Theoretical Physics?

***
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Beware of Dirty Politics at Elsevier and Annals of Physi

Postby thray » Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:29 am

Heinera wrote: "What is the role of the detector setting a in this expression? Do you mean that A(a, lambda) is always +1 if lambda is +1, or could some vaule of a make A(a, lambda) equal -1 even when lambda = +1?"

The experimenter's freedom to change a detector setting does not affect the initial condition. It will always be dependent on the time index. You Bell loyalists cannot seem to get it through your heads that a variable cannot be both dependent and independent at the same time.
thray
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2014 6:30 am

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library