Joy Christian wrote:Why don't you ask her yourself?
***
I did. She didn't answer.
Joy Christian wrote:Why don't you ask her yourself?
***
Heinera wrote:I see that Sabine Hossenfelder has not yet mentioned this substantial paper on her now famous blog. This a COMPLETE DISGRACE! ! I know she is a friend of Joy Christian, and that they have some commercial operation going together. So WHY wouldn't SHE MENTION HIM ON HER BLOG? DISGRACEFUL!
troll noun [ C ] (COMPUTING)
- someone who leaves an intentionally annoying message on the internet, in order to get attention or cause trouble.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/troll
Heinera wrote:Seems like RSOS has started a retraction process for the paper.
"An investigation into these aspects is under way, and the journal is therefore issuing an expression of concern and will notify readers as to the results of our investigation as soon as possible."
Joy Christian wrote:I do not see any mention by RSOS of "retraction" or "withdrawal." Some extremely stupid comments have been posted about my paper by a few extremist Bell-believers (because they are petrified of my repudiation of Bell's so-called theorem), and therefore the journal is naturally obliged to investigate the matter following the standard COPE protocol.
***
Heinera wrote:Sure. But we all know how these "investigations" end. I just hope you get your money back.
Heinera wrote:Whatever. But you should stop your attempts at publishing, because having a paper published and then retracted is much, much worse for your reputation than not having attempted to publish. And you already had one retracted.
But I guess you don't care about your reputation anymore.
gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".
gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".
jreed wrote:gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".
Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!
Joy Christian wrote:gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".
The paper was retracted after some bogus complaint of "errors" in it was sent to the editors of Annals of Physics. But the journal failed to provide me any evidence of error, even privately, and even after repeated requests from me. I have documented the full context of the shoddy behavior of the journal in this regard in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=283&p=8139#p6853
I have also summarized my response to various criticisms of my paper that could have been sent to the journal in this paper: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem
Considering the gross injustice done to the paper and the setback that has inflicted to the foundations of physics, it is only fair that the paper is now being reconsidered for publication.
***
gill1109 wrote:jreed wrote:gill1109 wrote:Having your paper published, retracted, and then re-published again in a journal of even higher prestige, would on the other hand give one a sublimely high reputation. Probably it has already happened a few times. "The Times They Are a-Changin".
Hi Richard, nice to see you back on this site!
Thanks Jim!
All thanks to the enormous efforts and sublime patience of Jay Yablon, and thanks to the graciousness of Joy and Fred!
Joy Christian wrote:***
I wrote this paper last year. My first one in pure mathematics. After some minor improvements, it is now published on the arXiv. It is an explicit proof of the algebra used in the RSOS paper.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1908.06172
gill1109 wrote:
I believe it is fatally flawed, as it contradicts the very well known and well understood Hurwitz's theorem
gill1109 wrote:
I have elsewhere detailed exactly where, I believe, your proof goes off the rails. A telling phrase in the paper is that you write, just after the crucial formula (10), "provided the norms are calculated employing the fundamental geometric product instead of the usual scalar product". This is a bit odd since it is completely irrelevant to the Hurwitz's theorem *how* norms are calculated.
Joy Christian wrote:...
As you say, the devil is in the details.
...
It does not matter how the norms are calculated. They can indeed be calculated using a scalar product. I have a good reason for using the fundamental geometric product. It does require some basic understanding of Geometric Algebra. Elsewhere I have exposed your elementary mistakes in Geometric Algebra: https://www.academia.edu/38423874/Refut ... ls_Theorem.
Joy Christian wrote:I do not care about your opinion of my work. You do not have the qualifications to judge it. You have shown no understanding of Geometric Algebra despite years of my efforts to teach you.
Return to Sci.Physics.Foundations
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests