Sci.Physics.Foundations

.
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

Excellent!

RSOS is very slow, but should be out soon.

Looking forward to some new work by you, Joy!

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

Note that this paper includes three scathing critiques of Bell's "theorem", in its Subsections III-A to III-C, independently of my local-realistic 3-sphere model.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 22, 2021 8:46 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.
As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:
http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.
My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

Note that this paper includes three scathing critiques of Bell's "theorem", in its Subsections III-A to III-C, independently of my local-realistic 3-sphere model.

You thought they were scathing. I thought they were hilarious, and I've told the editors so! Don't worry, they have to publish your "Reply" anyway and I have recommended them to do so. There is no establishment conspiracy against your work! I am not the incompetent henchman of evil powers. After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft. Oh sorry, one should not tease so mercilessly. In the Netherlands we most mercilessly tease the people whom we like the best. It's a confusing aspect of Dutch culture.

.
A lovely photo of Bell's theorem:


.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:42 am
After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft.

Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in the US during the academic year 1987-1988). Dirac, of course, is universally admired for his enormous contributions to physics. But instead of Copernicus, I admire Kepler. My book Disproof of Bell's Theorem is dedicated to Kepler. But a statistician like you wouldn't understand why I have dedicated my book to Kepler.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:01 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:42 am After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft.

Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in the US during the academic year 1987-1988). Dirac, of course, is universally admired for his enormous contributions to physics. But instead of Copernicus, I admire Kepler. My book Disproof of Bell's Theorem is dedicated to Kepler. But a statistician like you wouldn't understand why I have dedicated my book to Kepler.

Thanks for the corrections. I’m sorry, I had forgotten whether it was Kepler or Copernicus whom you specially admired. Please explain your special admiration for Kepler. I was a physicist before I became a mathematician and in recent years I almost became a physicist again. I consider myself a scientist and I’m interested in meta-science: the science of scientific arguments.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:02 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:01 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 28, 2021 12:42 am After all, everyone knows I'm just a third-rate statistician. Whereas you are a great scientist, of the stature of your heroes Copernicus, Dirac and 't Hooft.

Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in the US during the academic year 1987-1988). Dirac, of course, is universally admired for his enormous contributions to physics. But instead of Copernicus, I admire Kepler. My book Disproof of Bell's Theorem is dedicated to Kepler. But a statistician like you wouldn't understand why I have dedicated my book to Kepler.

Thanks for the corrections. I’m sorry, I had forgotten whether it was Kepler or Copernicus whom you specially admired. Please explain your special admiration for Kepler. I was a physicist before I became a mathematician and in recent years I almost became a physicist again. I consider myself a scientist and I’m interested in meta-science: the science of scientific arguments.

Kepler, a mathematics teacher, had many admirable qualities as a scientist. He was the first person to introduce physics into astronomy. His dedication to carrying out painstaking calculations of the orbit of Mars at least seventy times from the data collected by Tycho Brahe before considering the unthinkable elliptical orbit to account for the discrepancy in the circular orbit is legendary. But above all, he was the first person to introduce the notion of a universal gravitational force in nature, which was later formalized by Newton mathematically. Thus gravity was "discovered" by Kepler, not Newton. By contrast, the idea of a heliocentric cosmos that Copernicus is famous for was well known to presocratic greeks like Aristarchus of Samos some two millennia before him.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 10:03 pm

gill1109 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:02 pm

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Wed Dec 29, 2021 9:01 am Copernicus and 't Hooft are not my heroes (although, I did take a course on quantum field theory taught by 't Hooft at Boston University in the US during the academic year 1987-1988). Dirac, of course, is universally admired for his enormous contributions to physics. But instead of Copernicus, I admire Kepler. My book Disproof of Bell's Theorem is dedicated to Kepler. But a statistician like you wouldn't understand why I have dedicated my book to Kepler.

Thanks for the corrections. I’m sorry, I had forgotten whether it was Kepler or Copernicus whom you specially admired. Please explain your special admiration for Kepler. I was a physicist before I became a mathematician and in recent years I almost became a physicist again. I consider myself a scientist and I’m interested in meta-science: the science of scientific arguments.

Kepler, a mathematics teacher, had many admirable qualities as a scientist. He was the first person to introduce physics into astronomy. His dedication to carrying out painstaking calculations of the orbit of Mars at least seventy times from the data collected by Tycho Brahe before considering the unthinkable elliptical orbit to account for the discrepancy in the circular orbit is legendary. But above all, he was the first person to introduce the notion of a universal gravitational force in nature, which was later formalized by Newton mathematically. Thus gravity was "discovered" by Kepler, not Newton. By contrast, the idea of a heliocentric cosmos that Copernicus is famous for was well known to presocratic greeks like Aristarchus of Samos some two millennia before him.

Thank you! "Gravity was 'discovered' by Kepler, not Newton". I didn't know that!

Unfortunately behind a paywall
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5089751
Kepler and the origins of the theory of gravity
American Journal of Physics 87, 176 (2019)
Eugene Hecht

gill1109 wrote: ↑Thu Dec 30, 2021 12:07 am Unfortunately behind a paywall
https://aapt.scitation.org/doi/10.1119/1.5089751
Kepler and the origins of the theory of gravity
American Journal of Physics 87, 176 (2019)
Eugene Hecht

Thanks for this reference. I was not aware of it. I have downloaded the paper. Here is the abstract:

The concept of gravity came into being in ancient times as a terrestrial concern associated with the
practicalities of “weight.” A great leap forward came in the early 1600s with the important
theoretical speculations of Johannes Kepler. This article focuses on his prescient theory of gravity
which guided the later progress of a number of scholars including Roberval, Hooke, and Newton.
And yet, Kepler’s remarkable contribution to gravitational theory has been almost completely
overlooked in the contemporary scientific literature.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.
.

Great! RSOS seems to be being delayed by hangovers after a boozy Christmas and New Year. I hope it is concluded soon. They told me before Christmas that just one referee had been delaying things, but they had had contact with him or her again, and this soon should be finished. Then we will be done … till your next work is published.

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:26 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.
.

Great! RSOS seems to be being delayed by hangovers after a boozy Christmas and New Year. I hope it is concluded soon. They told me before Christmas that just one referee had been delaying things, but they had had contact with him or her again, and this soon should be finished. Then we will be done … till your next work is published.

We can hardly wait until your RSOS nonsense paper is published. NOT!
.

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:43 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:26 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am
My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.
.

Great! RSOS seems to be being delayed by hangovers after a boozy Christmas and New Year. I hope it is concluded soon. They told me before Christmas that just one referee had been delaying things, but they had had contact with him or her again, and this soon should be finished. Then we will be done … till your next work is published.

We can hardly wait until your RSOS nonsense paper is published. NOT!

He submitted his RSOS nonsense paper 15 months ago, in October 2020. Evidently, RSOS is giving him a big hint that his opinions are not as important as he thinks they are. Since 2018, he has desperately tried to have my RSOS paper retracted, by making all sorts of bogus and discredited claims. But RSOS has refused to retract my paper despite his many tantrums. He has found out the hard way that the Royal Society of London cannot be bullied so easily.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 3:25 am

FrediFizzx wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 2:43 am

gill1109 wrote: ↑Sat Jan 15, 2022 1:26 am

Great! RSOS seems to be being delayed by hangovers after a boozy Christmas and New Year. I hope it is concluded soon. They told me before Christmas that just one referee had been delaying things, but they had had contact with him or her again, and this soon should be finished. Then we will be done … till your next work is published.

We can hardly wait until your RSOS nonsense paper is published. NOT!

He submitted his RSOS nonsense paper 15 months ago, in October 2020. Evidently, RSOS is giving him a big hint that his opinions are not as important as he thinks they are. Since 2018, he has desperately tried to have my RSOS paper retracted, by making all sorts of bogus and discredited claims. But RSOS has refused to retract my paper despite his many tantrums. He has found out the hard way that the Royal Society of London cannot be bullied so easily.

RSOS decided that it was wiser not to retract Joy’s paper but instead to complete a proper round of public scientific debate. Paper, Comment, Reply. They are being very careful and very conscientious about this. Many reviewers. Careful enforcement of civility and objectivity by neutral editors. Naturally, Joy’s supporters aren’t interested in my contribution. Bell’s supporters aren’t interested in Joy’s papers. But taken together, the papers can have some importance to the huge community of interested scientists who don’t know much about the whole debate.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.

Final manuscript files submitted. The paper is now in production. It will be published online, with DOI, within the next ten days.
.

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Sun Jan 23, 2022 5:34 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Fri Jan 14, 2022 1:55 am

Joy Christian wrote: ↑Tue Dec 21, 2021 10:25 pm .
Richard D. Gill has published another crank "comment" paper on my work on quantum correlations, which he mistakenly thinks is on Bell's "theorem":

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9622238.

As tedious a waste of time it is for me to keep replying to Gill's crank papers, I have ended up submitting a Reply paper to IEEE Access:

http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.24054.11847.

My paper is currently under peer review at the journal where my original paper has been published:

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8836453.

My "Reply to Comment" paper has been accepted by IEEE Access. Its publication will follow after my submission of the final manuscript files.

Final manuscript files submitted. The paper is now in production. It will be published online, with DOI, within the next ten days.

My paper is now published and available online: https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/9693502.
.

To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.

Thanks; Gordon

Gordon Watson wrote: ↑Sun Jan 30, 2022 6:51 am To Richard Gill and Joy Christian: WRT your debate, please define REALISM.

Thanks; Gordon

Well, I will define realistic as it relates to the latest simulation. Give me 2D values for the vectors a and b and a 3D value for the singlet vector s then I will tell you what the outcomes are at A and B. IOW, I can realistically predict the exact results. That is pretty much it for realism.
.