SciPhysicsForums.com

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:19 pm**

Joy Christian wrote:You are worthless until you prove otherwise. And I have given you plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise. But you can't. Because you have nothing to show for your arrogance.
.

I'm afraid that your definition of being "worthy" means people who show you unconditional admiration. That will never happen.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:23 pm**

Heinera wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:You are worthless until you prove otherwise. And I have given you plenty of opportunities to prove otherwise. But you can't. Because you have nothing to show for your arrogance.
.

I'm afraid that your definition of being "worthy" means people who show you unconditional admiration. That will never happen.

Dodge the issue. That is all you can do. What is your worth? Absolutely nothing, until you provide evidence of your worth. Go look in a mirror and ask yourself. What is your worth? Zero.
.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2021 12:41 pm**

Ok guys, you are way off topic here.
.

Posted: **Sat Oct 09, 2021 1:15 pm**

As I was saying, the Nobel committee is sticking by Einstein's relativity in favor of woo-woo physics. Amply demonstrated here, the quantum mysterians have only insults and diversions to distract us from reason, in support of their irrational beliefs.

Posted: **Sun Oct 10, 2021 11:01 am**

local wrote:As I was saying, the Nobel committee is sticking by Einstein's relativity in favor of woo-woo physics. Amply demonstrated here, the quantum mysterians have only insults and diversions to distract us from reason, in support of their irrational beliefs.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:07 am**

My “Comments” on Joy Christian’s first IEEE Access paper, and on his RSOS paper, are now close to being accepted by the journals. Hopefully near final versions have been resubmitted, and posted on arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169
I’m looking forward to reviewing Christian’s “Replies”.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 1:11 am**

The Bell inequalities are meaningless no matter which way you try to understand them. It is because of ONE simple fact that you Bell fanatics can't seem to wrap your mind around. NOTHING can exceed the bound on the inequalities!!!!!!!!!!!! :lol:

.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 3:48 am**

gill1109 wrote:My “Comments” on Joy Christian’s first IEEE Access paper, and on his RSOS paper, are now close to being accepted by the journals. Hopefully near final versions have been resubmitted, and posted on arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169
I’m looking forward to reviewing Christian’s “Replies”.

These unpublished preprints contain crank claims and defend a discredited claim made by Bell. They are based on numerous falsehoods that the author is fond of repeating shamelessly.
.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 7:30 am**

Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My “Comments” on Joy Christian’s first IEEE Access paper, and on his RSOS paper, are now close to being accepted by the journals. Hopefully near final versions have been resubmitted, and posted on arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169
I’m looking forward to reviewing Christian’s “Replies”.

These unpublished preprints contain crank claims and defend a discredited claim made by Bell. They are based on numerous falsehoods that the author is fond of repeating shamelessly.

A lot of people think that Bell's claim has not been discredited. A lot of people liked these two preprints very much. I was invited by the editors of the two journals to contribute them. When, in a short time from now, Joy's responses have been submitted but not yet accepted, and when (if) he posts them on arXiv, they will also be unpublished preprints and I will happily argue that they contain crank claims. (I thought that that word was forbidden on this forum?). I am very fond of repeating crystal clear proofs of Bell's theorem. I repeat my claims shamelessly. Joy repeats his claims shamelessly. Why should we be ashamed of what we passionately believe in? We clearly both enjoy debate, and I am learning a lot about debating from Joy. So: thank you! Last night I dreamt you gave a dinner and I was there. It was very convivial and the food was great. I was feeling good because yesterday one of my nurses got acquitted (Daniela Poggiali, from Italy). She had been convicted of murder on the basis of incompetent statistics and incompetent toxicology, which also had a statistical competent. Talk about lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 5:46 pm**

gill1109 wrote:
Joy Christian wrote:
gill1109 wrote:My “Comments” on Joy Christian’s first IEEE Access paper, and on his RSOS paper, are now close to being accepted by the journals. Hopefully near final versions have been resubmitted, and posted on arXiv.
https://arxiv.org/abs/2103.00225
https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.03169
I’m looking forward to reviewing Christian’s “Replies”.

These unpublished preprints contain crank claims and defend a discredited claim made by Bell. They are based on numerous falsehoods that the author is fond of repeating shamelessly.

A lot of people liked these two preprints very much.

If that is true, then that means a lot of people liked Gill's crank claims. Those people are most likely either diehard Bell-believers, and thus as blind as a bat, or simply not very bright.

Could I be biased in my opinion? Let us look at objective facts. Gill's preprint to RSOS was submitted over a year ago, in October 2020 to be precise. Since then RSOS has published thousands of new papers, some submitted less than two months ago. Evidently, Gill's preprint has been repeatedly thrown into the long grass by reviewers and RSOS. So much for the so-called "invited comment paper." His preprint submitted to IEEE Access hasn't faired better either. It is now on the fourth round of peer-review after it was rejected three times, in three previous attempts by Gill to publish it. Again, so much for the so-called "invited comment paper." What a joke! What a waste of scientific resources!
.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:21 pm**

The processes take a long time because of the huge numbers of reviewers and the fact that the editors do not play any scientific role in the discussion between referees and author. It’s a new model of scientific publishing. The journals are designed to rapidly publish controversial work which get media attention. Unfortunately this leads to the rapid publication of garbage and then they’re in a bit of a mess. They can’t retract work which is wrong, because nothing is wrong, it is all just an opinion. So they have to play out a farcical imitation of a learned debate.

Posted: **Tue Oct 26, 2021 10:31 pm**

@gill1109 More boring nonsense. I should just delete it. I didn't create this forum for all your nonsense you know.
.

SciPhysicsForums.com

Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectations

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation

Re: Bell-test experiments rule out additivity of expectation