Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Mar 29, 2021 8:49 pm

gill1109 wrote:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? (with corrections)
Richard D. Gill

A mathematically incompetent version of Martin Horky! The historians of science are going to have a field day. They usually love characters like Martin Horky. Arthur Koestler, for example, in his classic history of `The Sleepwalkers', describes Horky as a `young fool.' Fools can be both young and old. The story of Galileo and Kepler would have been rather pale without Horky. :)

The paper Gill has proudly linked is full of elementary conceptual and mathematical mistakes that start with the very title of his paper. See my response: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

But there is no need to take my word for it. All one needs to do is look at the published reviewer reports on his paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61/review_report

Let me reproduce an image of one of the reports for everyone to see (it is a report on Gill's paper in Entropy):

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 11:59 pm

FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Do Quaternions provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? :lol: :lol: :lol:
You really should have trashed that paper.

The editors of "Entropy" and a majority of referees didn't think so! So, too bad.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:06 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.1504
Does Geometric Algebra provide a loophole to Bell's Theorem? (with corrections)
Richard D. Gill

A mathematically incompetent version of Martin Horky! The historians of science are going to have a field day. They usually love characters like Martin Horky. Arthur Koestler, for example, in his classic history of `The Sleepwalkers', describes Horky as a `young fool.' Fools can be both young and old. The story of Galileo and Kepler would have been rather pale without Horky. :)

The paper Gill has proudly linked is full of elementary conceptual and mathematical mistakes that start with the very title of his paper. See my response: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

But there is no need to take my word for it. All one needs to do is look at the published reviewer reports on his paper: https://www.mdpi.com/1099-4300/22/1/61/review_report

Let me reproduce an image of one of the reports for everyone to see (it is a report on Gill's paper in Entropy):

Image

There are a lot of strange people around in science these days.

But anyway, I submitted a version addressing all those points. The tale of Joy Christian would have been extremely pale without Richard Gill.

I suggest that Joy Christian now submits his critique of my paper to "Entropy". I will be recused from having anything to do with the review.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Justo » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:17 am

gill1109 wrote:There are a lot of strange people around in science these days.

But anyway, I submitted a version addressing all those points. The tale of Joy Christian would have been extremely pale without Richard Gill.

I suggest that Joy Christian now submits his critique of my paper to "Entropy". I will be recused from having anything to do with the review.


I do not understand, is this another paper?. What happens with the previous one? Shouldn't it be retracted to avoid confusion?
Justo
 

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:42 am

Justo wrote:
gill1109 wrote:There are a lot of strange people around in science these days.

But anyway, I submitted a version addressing all those points. The tale of Joy Christian would have been extremely pale without Richard Gill.

I suggest that Joy Christian now submits his critique of my paper to "Entropy". I will be recused from having anything to do with the review.


I do not understand, is this another paper?. What happens with the previous one? Shouldn't it be retracted to avoid confusion?

I had asked Entropy to retract Gill's paper because of several reasons. I reproduce here my initial email for the record. I have censored the last sentence of my email because it makes some personal comments about Gill's character that are not suitable for this forum:

On Thu, Feb 20, 2020, Joy Christian wrote:
Dear Professor Knuth,

I am writing about one of the papers recently published in your journal Entropy by the author Richard D. Gill. Namely, this paper: https://doi.org/10.3390/e22010061.

The paper is a critique of my work of the past thirteen years, but does not cite the following three papers of mine that have already addressed the issues raised by Gill:

(1) Refutation of Richard Gill's Argument Against my Disproof of Bell's Theorem: https://arxiv.org/abs/1203.2529

(2) Macroscopic Observability of Fermionic Sign Changes: A Reply to Gill: https://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393

(3) https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem

Apart from this, Gill’s paper is of extremely poor quality and contains numerous mathematical and conceptual mistakes.

More seriously, it contains several ad hominem attacks on me as well as on the editorial boards of the journals Royal Society Open Science and IEEE Access in which two of my papers are recently published. Gill’s paper reads like a tabloid newspaper rather than a serious scholarly article. It is extraordinary that your journal has published such a poor-quality paper.

Much more seriously, Gill’s paper contains defamatory and libelous claims. He claims that I stole his computer code and he wrote to Royal Society Open Science about it. Neither of these claims is true.

Many other personal attacks on me in his paper are also not true. In fact, they are demonstrably false.

In any case, unless Gill’s paper is retracted from Entropy, I will be forced to launch legal action against the journal, based on defamation by publishing libelous smear.

You may not be aware of the fact that Richard D. Gill ... (personal comments censored by me for this forum).

Sincerely,

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby minkwe » Wed Mar 31, 2021 4:34 pm

gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Same old junk physics and math, and lies; different day.

Well, the junk physics and math and the lies are elsewhere! Take a look at https://rpubs.com/jjc/13965, in particular, this text:
Code: Select all
## This version has been adapted from Richard Gill's optimized version of
## Michel Fodje's original simulation of the model, which can be found here:
## http://rpubs.com/gill1109/EPRB3opt. Later Richard Gill improved his 3D
## version by employing the exact probability distribution derived by Philip
## Pearle in his classic 1970 paper: http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle. It
## should be noted, however, that, unlike Pearle's model, the 3-sphere model
## has nothing whatsoever to do with data rejection or detection loophole.
## All of the above simulations are inspired by the original simulation of
## the 3-sphere model by Chantal Roth, https://github.com/chenopodium/JCS2.


First of all, Michel Fodje never wrote a simulation of Christian's model. He invented his own detection loophole and coincidence loophole models and published the Python code of them. He saw them as local realistic models which reproduced experimental results. He did not like the names "detection loophole" and "coincidence loophole". But that doesn't matter. None of these simulations were inspired by Chantal Roth's. Mine was a simulation of Pearle's model, which I learnt about from papers by Caroline Thompson, who published detection loophole models long, long ago. Caroline's models had nice physical interpretations, unlike Pearle's. But they did not produce the negative cosine exactly, only approximately. But good enough that one would not have been able to see the difference, with experimentally available data.

Chantal's model is a simple calculation using quaternions. In GA terms, she simply computes the real part of a b, and she even says that that is what she is doing! Her program was inspired by John Reeds' Mathematica implementation of some formulas in some of Christian's papers, which later resulted in that GA Viewer simulation. Which .... effectively, simply computes the real part of a b while adding some noise due to binning of "continuous" angles in discrete bins.

It is not even physics. It's just some elementary maths disguised as physics. In my opinion, it would make a rather nice hoax (cf. Sokal and Sneath). This is a fantastic "stress test" on present day scientific publishing.


Richard, I will advise you against using my name to fight your battles. Besides what you have written about me above is not accurate.

For the record, here is what happened. I started working on my epr-simple simulation long before I published any python code on this forum. I got in touch with Joy through one of the sci.physics.* google groups and he made many suggestions on how to improve the model. I don't remember if it was Joy or John Reed, or Fred that invited me to join this forum. The reason I reached out to Joy in the first place was that I thought there may be some similarities between what I was doing and what he had described. Shortly after joining this forum, I published the code. Publishing the code kicked off a lot of discussions involving multiple parties including Richard, Joy, Fred, John and perhaps a few more. It was during this discussion that the similarity to the Pearle model was brought up. Those discussions are still in the record for everyone to see. The suggestion that Richard independently came up with a simulation of Pearle's model is very misleading and bordering on deception. Everything happened in the context of the discussions arising out of the publication of epr-simple on GitHub, and Richard's attempt to "improve" it. I even remember somebody implying to me either in public or in private that I had stolen the simulation from Caroline Thompson or Pearle himself. There was even an unfounded suggestion to my employer that I had committed plagiarism. Maybe that was just a tantrum. I won't name names.

There is just one statement above that you are absolutely correct about. I do not like the terms "detection loophole" or "coincidence loophole". I think they are used as a sleight-of-hand to transfer the responsibility for failure from Bell to experimentalists. It's like a pot that has many large holes, whenever it is pointed out that the pot is flawed, believers claim that the problem is with those trying to use the pot without patching all the holes.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:48 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
FrediFizzx wrote:@gill1109 Same old junk physics and math, and lies; different day.

Well, the junk physics and math and the lies are elsewhere! Take a look at https://rpubs.com/jjc/13965, in particular, this text:
Code: Select all
## This version has been adapted from Richard Gill's optimized version of
## Michel Fodje's original simulation of the model, which can be found here:
## http://rpubs.com/gill1109/EPRB3opt. Later Richard Gill improved his 3D
## version by employing the exact probability distribution derived by Philip
## Pearle in his classic 1970 paper: http://rpubs.com/gill1109/Pearle. It
## should be noted, however, that, unlike Pearle's model, the 3-sphere model
## has nothing whatsoever to do with data rejection or detection loophole.
## All of the above simulations are inspired by the original simulation of
## the 3-sphere model by Chantal Roth, https://github.com/chenopodium/JCS2.


First of all, Michel Fodje never wrote a simulation of Christian's model. He invented his own detection loophole and coincidence loophole models and published the Python code of them. He saw them as local realistic models which reproduced experimental results. He did not like the names "detection loophole" and "coincidence loophole". But that doesn't matter. None of these simulations were inspired by Chantal Roth's. Mine was a simulation of Pearle's model, which I learnt about from papers by Caroline Thompson, who published detection loophole models long, long ago. Caroline's models had nice physical interpretations, unlike Pearle's. But they did not produce the negative cosine exactly, only approximately. But good enough that one would not have been able to see the difference, with experimentally available data.

Chantal's model is a simple calculation using quaternions. In GA terms, she simply computes the real part of a b, and she even says that that is what she is doing! Her program was inspired by John Reeds' Mathematica implementation of some formulas in some of Christian's papers, which later resulted in that GA Viewer simulation. Which .... effectively, simply computes the real part of a b while adding some noise due to binning of "continuous" angles in discrete bins.

It is not even physics. It's just some elementary maths disguised as physics. In my opinion, it would make a rather nice hoax (cf. Sokal and Sneath). This is a fantastic "stress test" on present day scientific publishing.


Richard, I will advise you against using my name to fight your battles. Besides what you have written about me above is not accurate.

For the record, here is what happened. I started working on my epr-simple simulation long before I published any python code on this forum. I got in touch with Joy through one of the sci.physics.* google groups and he made many suggestions on how to improve the model. I don't remember if it was Joy or John Reed, or Fred that invited me to join this forum. The reason I reached out to Joy in the first place was that I thought there may be some similarities between what I was doing and what he had described. Shortly after joining this forum, I published the code. Publishing the code kicked off a lot of discussions involving multiple parties including Richard, Joy, Fred, John and perhaps a few more. It was during this discussion that the similarity to the Pearle model was brought up. Those discussions are still in the record for everyone to see. The suggestion that Richard independently came up with a simulation of Pearle's model is very misleading and bordering on deception. Everything happened in the context of the discussions arising out of the publication of epr-simple on GitHub, and Richard's attempt to "improve" it. I even remember somebody implying to me either in public or in private that I had stolen the simulation from Caroline Thompson or Pearle himself. There was even an unfounded suggestion to my employer that I had committed plagiarism. Maybe that was just a tantrum. I won't name names.

There is just one statement above that you are absolutely correct about. I do not like the terms "detection loophole" or "coincidence loophole". I think they are used as a sleight-of-hand to transfer the responsibility for failure from Bell to experimentalists. It's like a pot that has many large holes, whenever it is pointed out that the pot is flawed, believers claim that the problem is with those trying to use the pot without patching all the holes.

Thanks for the story. I agree. I never said that I “independently” brought up the Pearle model. I brought it up in response to the discussions with Joy, Fred, Chantal. I never suggested that you (Michel) *stole* it from anyone. I did wonder if you had been inspired by de Raedt and Michielsen.

You already told me that you had come up with the detection loophole and the coincidence loophole yourself, only you don’t use those names. I tell the story “your way” in my most recent works. The important thing to note is that Michel’s simulation models are not implementations of Joy’s GA models! But that is what Joy wrote in his papers. Perhaps he is now beginning to see the light. I hope so.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:11 pm

gill1109 wrote:Thanks for the story. I agree. I never said that I “independently” brought up the Pearle model. I brought it up in response to the discussions with Joy, Fred, Chantal. I never suggested that you (Michel) *stole* it from anyone. I did wonder if you had been inspired by de Raedt and Michielsen.

You already told me that you had come up with the detection loophole and the coincidence loophole yourself, only you don’t use those names. I tell the story “your way” in my most recent works. The important thing to note is that Michel’s simulation models are not implementations of Joy’s GA models! But that is what Joy wrote in his papers. Perhaps he is now beginning to see the light. I hope so.

It never ceases to amaze me how effortlessly you lie and do so in public. I woulder if there is another Richard D. Gill who pestered the editors of IEEE Access for months that his computer code was stolen, and wrote the following on the Disqus thread of my paper: "Joy Christian's programmers copy-pasted my own computer code and published it as his own in publications very soon after, and on RPubs. I was astounded by the theft": http://disq.us/p/25r9mz7. Note that that imposter specifically mentions Michel Fodje in that post accusing plagiarism.

If you are wondering why your plagiarism claim was thrown out by IEEE, then here is the reason: I provided date-by-date evidence to them, from September 2013, in an eleven-pages long detailed document of what really happened. They can therefore immediately see that you were lying. The editors of your own journal Entropy know that you lied to them about your claims in your paper. The whole world knows by now that you can easily compete with a certain ex-president in the art of lying out of your teeth.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby minkwe » Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:17 am

gill1109 wrote:You already told me that you had come up with the detection loophole and the coincidence loophole yourself

This is a lie! I never said such a dumb thing! Do you have a record of me saying such a thing? Please present it or retract the claim.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Heinera » Thu Apr 01, 2021 10:02 am

minkwe wrote:[...]
For the record, here is what happened. I started working on my epr-simple simulation long before I published any python code on this forum. I got in touch with Joy through one of the sci.physics.* google groups and he made many suggestions on how to improve the model. I don't remember if it was Joy or John Reed, or Fred that invited me to join this forum. The reason I reached out to Joy in the first place was that I thought there may be some similarities between what I was doing and what he had described.
[...]

The link to the relevant usenet thread can be found in this post:

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=406&p=10089&hilit=usenet#p10085
Heinera
 
Posts: 917
Joined: Thu Feb 06, 2014 1:50 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby minkwe » Thu Apr 01, 2021 2:06 pm

gill1109 wrote:I never suggested that you (Michel) *stole* it from anyone. I did wonder if you had been inspired by de Raedt and Michielsen.

Here is what you wrote in the thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=406&p=10089#p10103
gill1109 wrote:Are you trying to tell us that Michel got the formula cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t from Joy? I got it drummed into my head at high school. So I don't think that can quite be the point. Moreover, I think Michel is the one who can tell us, if he wants to, how or where he found his model.


Again insinuating that I got the model from somewhere and don't want to say.
minkwe
 
Posts: 1441
Joined: Sat Feb 08, 2014 10:22 am

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:35 pm

minkwe wrote:
gill1109 wrote:I never suggested that you (Michel) *stole* it from anyone. I did wonder if you had been inspired by de Raedt and Michielsen.

Here is what you wrote in the thread viewtopic.php?f=6&t=406&p=10089#p10103
gill1109 wrote:Are you trying to tell us that Michel got the formula cos 2t = 1 - 2 sin²t from Joy? I got it drummed into my head at high school. So I don't think that can quite be the point. Moreover, I think Michel is the one who can tell us, if he wants to, how or where he found his model.


Again insinuating that I got the model from somewhere and don't want to say.

I'm not insinuating anything. I said that you are the one who could tell us, if you want to, how or where you found your model. And later (much later), you did do exactly that. You found it out for yourself. Congratulations. I was always very impressed by your coding and I'm very impressed by your creativity, too.

Incidentally, Joy was the first person who suggested to you, Michel, that what you were doing was related to the detection loophole.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Sun Apr 11, 2021 12:28 am

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:
Yesterday I got the expected request to referee Christian's "reply" to my "comment" on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper. My report has now been submitted. My "comment" on the first IEEE Access paper is being reviewed. I hope to get news from RSOS coming week.

I have posted my "reply" on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not posted my "reply" on the arXiv yet as it will have to go through revisions in light of the reviewer comments and editorial suggestions, and that may take a while.

I have received fourteen reviewer reports from IEEE Access on my above "Reply to Comment." This will keep me busy for a while and, as expected, require some changes to my "Reply."
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon Apr 19, 2021 11:32 am

Joy Christian wrote:
I have received fourteen reviewer reports from IEEE Access on my above "Reply to Comment." This will keep me busy for a while and, as expected, require some changes to my "Reply."

I have resubmitted my manuscript, together with my responses to all fourteen reviewer reports. I have also posted the revised manuscript on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not yet posted my "Reply" on the arXiv as it will have to go through the second round of reviews and revision (assuming it is not rejected after my responses in the first round).
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Tue Apr 27, 2021 5:02 am

Joy Christian wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
I have received fourteen reviewer reports from IEEE Access on my above "Reply to Comment." This will keep me busy for a while and, as expected, require some changes to my "Reply."

I have resubmitted my manuscript, together with my responses to all fourteen reviewer reports. I have also posted the revised manuscript on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not yet posted my "Reply" on the arXiv as it will have to go through the second round of reviews and revision (assuming it is not rejected after my responses in the first round).

Accepted by IEEE Access. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449

The article is still in the production process, however. It should be accessible using the above DOI within a week or so.
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Thu Apr 29, 2021 11:57 pm

Joy Christian wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
I have received fourteen reviewer reports from IEEE Access on my above "Reply to Comment." This will keep me busy for a while and, as expected, require some changes to my "Reply."

I have resubmitted my manuscript, together with my responses to all fourteen reviewer reports. I have also posted the revised manuscript on Academia.Edu and ResearchGate:

https://www.academia.edu/45322288/Reply ... l_Reality_

https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... l_Reality'

I have not yet posted my "Reply" on the arXiv as it will have to go through the second round of reviews and revision (assuming it is not rejected after my responses in the first round).

Accepted by IEEE Access. DOI: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3076449

The article is still in the production process, however. It should be accessible using the above DOI within a week or so.

The DOI is now active (however, the paper is still in production): https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9418997
.
Joy Christian
Research Physicist
 
Posts: 2793
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2014 4:49 am
Location: Oxford, United Kingdom

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Joy Christian » Mon May 03, 2021 7:45 pm

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

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby Justo » Tue May 04, 2021 6:24 am

Congratulations! That is how civilized people, especially scientists, are supposed to discuss different opinions. Not by insults and personal attacks.
Justo
 

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby gill1109 » Tue May 04, 2021 10:42 pm

Justo wrote:Congratulations! That is how civilized people, especially scientists, are supposed to discuss different opinions. Not by insults and personal attacks.

Yes. In the pipeline are comments by me on Joy’s other IEEE Access paper and on his RSOS paper. All three of my “Comments” were written on the invitation of the editors. Naturally, Joy will have the opportunity to submit “Replies” to those comments too.

Joy recently submitted a complaint concerning ad hominem remarks by me in another paper by me overviewing his work up to and including the RSOS paper. His complaint was evaluated by a committee of wise persons who gave recommendations for rewriting and deletions. My paper (in “Entropy”) has now been corrected according to their requests, which were very reasonable.

Michel Fodje recently complained that I misrepresented his work in an arXiv preprint by me on his simulation models. This too has now been corrected and an apology is included, warning that earlier versions are withdrawn.

I hope this draws the curtain in a civilized fashion on most ongoing disagreements. We have to agree to differ on a number of substantial issues.
gill1109
Mathematical Statistician
 
Posts: 2812
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 10:39 pm
Location: Leiden

Re: Comment on Joy Christian's second IEEE Access paper

Postby FrediFizzx » Wed May 05, 2021 1:53 am

gill1109 wrote:... We have to agree to differ on a number of substantial issues.

We make no such agreement with a bunch of nonsense.
.
FrediFizzx
Independent Physics Researcher
 
Posts: 2905
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2013 7:12 pm
Location: N. California, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ahrefs [Bot] and 76 guests

cron
CodeCogs - An Open Source Scientific Library