Unregistered Submission
I made that statement alluded to and I didn't mean to imply that IJTP would publish just anything, least of all for a fee. I was being sarcastic in response to Peer 1...
I made that statement alluded to and I didn't mean to imply that IJTP would publish just anything, least of all for a fee. I was being sarcastic in response to Peer 1...
i agree with peer 16.however, one cannot help but yearn for an individual to objectively assess mr gill and mr christian's allegations to add some finality to this embarrassing display...
To be honest, I think this thread was derailed many months ago. Is there really anything more to add to it? It is unedifying to read. Perhaps it would be better continued in private...
Oxford University has no such cosy deal with Springer. Nor is anyone obliged to pay for receiving unethical favor of publishing such a mistake-ridden preprint like Gill's...
Springer has an agreement with all Dutch Universities (of course including Dr Gill's Leiden) that permits no-charge open access publication in its journals by academics affiliated with those…
The journal, IJTP, has a policy to publish a comment or a letter on their already published papers, especially if it accompanies threats by the commentator and his powerful political backers...
Thing is, Dr Gill got his paper published in IJTP, the same journal Peer 1 was touting not too long ago for its distinguished editorial board and long and glorious history etc...
The only way Gill can pretend to have undermined the author's work is by misrepresenting it with a grotesque straw-man, a figment of his own imagination, that has nothing whatsoever to do with the…
Thanks Unreg: here is a corrected version: http://rpubs.com/gill1109/80119
Pearle (1970), Gisin and Gisin (2008), Caroline Thompson (2004 and earlier papers) http://freespace.virgin.net/ch.thompson1/Papers/The%20Record/TheRecord...
The typo is the least of what is wrong with Gill's misrepresentation:http://www.sciphysicsforums.com/spfbb1/viewtopic.php?f=6
The detailed discussion with references of the pioneering work of Chantal Roth and Michel Fodje (in close collaboration with the author) have been provided by the author in the appendices of one of…
So Peer 1 = Joy Christian now accuses Gill of false priority claims? He had better substantiate such a serious accusation with detailed evidence (dates, computer code) and submit his accusation to a…
There is a typo inhttp://rpubs.com/gill1109/joyIt should beCHSH
Serious scientists would not be hoodwinked by Gill's misrepresentation of facts and evidence, as well as his false priority claims. Serious scientists would read the actual paper by the author and…
Serious scientists can indeed easily check the evidence for themselves. To verify whether or not particles have been "rejected" in Christian's simulation, one needs to inspect the code which…
It appears that Gill either cannot read simple English, or is deliberately trying to hoodwink the scientific community. Hopefully any serious scientists will verify the evidence for themselves and…
Hopefully Christian's response http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.03393.pdf will soon itself be published by IJTP. It is indeed a lucid exposition. I was delighted to read it and I hope anyone interested in…
The bottom line is that Gill was not allowed to post his viXra preprint on the arXiv by the arXiv moderators because it is unprofessionally written and full of personal attacks on the author:http://www…
The first version of my preprint had an amusing title (at least, I thought it was amusing) which however was read as a personal attack by an arXiv moderator...
Gill's viXra preprint --- which was rejected by the arXiv moderators for being unprofessional and unscientific --- has nothing whatsoever to do with the author's model...
For further analysis of the Christian model, see my http://vixra.org/abs/1504.0102 "Does Geometric Algebra Provide a Loophole to Bell's Theorem?"...
It is quite mindboggling that Gill's error-filled preprint is actually published by IJTP. His preprint contains blatant mistakes, calculated misrepresentations, and deliberate falsehoods...
My paper "Macroscopic Unobservability of Spinorial Sign Changes" has now appeared on IJTP http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10773-015-2657-4It's open access...
Well, Gill is actually wrong about many things, as exposed here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1501.03393 .
Dear UnregYou have missed the point of my original posting. The thought experiment could easily be carried out. I state that its results will *certainly* contradict the predictions made in the paper…
Much more importantly, Bell's so-called "theorem" has long been disproved,http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/disproof-of-bells-theorem-book/ ,so no further discussion is necessary...
Gill said, "...http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0509178Spacetime algebra and electron physicsC.J.L. Doran, A.N. Lasenby, S...
it is perplexing why mr gill and mr christian continue to subject themselves to a discussion that seemingly has no end.it is even more perplexing why mr christian keeps linking articles and blog…
Now Richard, if you could only give a constructive proof that Bell's theorem is independent of the experiment that validates it. As it is, your definition of "there exists" is meaningless to physics…
For those who haven't yet caught up, Bell's so-called "theorem" has long been disproved:http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/disproof-of-bells-theorem-book/
By the way, if you really want to know how to rewrite quantum mechanics in terms of geometry, including the EPR-B correlations, take a look at:http://arxiv...
Richard, if you had taken the effort to find out why Hestenes calls his framework "spacetime algebra," you might have gotten a clue to the computational model you overlooked -- in the works of both…
This so-called "analysis" by Gill of the author's model has nothing whatsoever to do with the author's actual model. Replacing the model X with its grotesque misrepresentation Y is the standard straw…
I wrote a "quick-start" introduction to geometric algebra with analysis of two variants of Christian's model: http://www.math.leidenuniv.nl/~gill/GA...
Neither Lucien Hardy nor Joy Christian were the referees of Gill's error-filled preprint. Neither of them are stupid. Lucien Hardy immediately spotted Gill's errors more than three years ago...
I proposed Lucien Hardy as referee. I also mentioned Joy Christian. I do not know who IJTP picked. The numerical computations by Albert Jan Wonnink mentioned by Peer 1 actually expose the sign error…
I wouldn't spend a lot of time worrying about it, Joy. Found. Phys. also published Weatherall's paper. These philosophical objections to local realism will eventually wither away, as have all…
As we all know, peer review is broken. IJTP just proved this well-known fact. Gill's "accepted" preprint is full of elementary algebraic and conceptual blunders, as exposed here: http://arxiv...
April 13, news from IJTP: my paper is accepted!
Knowing a "proof" of Bell's so-called "theorem" is unnecessary, because by now it has been decisively disproved, as shown in many different ways: http://libertesphilosophica...
Indeed, interested readers (if there are any) can evaluate the evidence for themselves. It will help if they familiarise themselves in advance (a) with the elementary principles of the basic…
Once again, the readers are free to believe Gill's misrepresentation of facts, or evaluate the evidence themselves:http://psnively...
Yes, the so-called event-by-event numerical simulations are rather revealing. One is a simulation by Richard Gill of the Pearle (1970) detection loophole model, http://rpubs...
The reader is of course free to believe the above bogus claims by Gill (which only expose his total lack of understanding of basic geometric algebra), or read this reply to him by the author: http://ar…
Ha ha! Albert Jan Wonnink found a major bug in the central formula (17) in Christian's model, original (2007 version) http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0703179 ...
Gill's rebuttal is pretty much a mute point now that Albert Jan Wonnink has proven the core part of Dr. Christian's model via the computer program GAViewer...
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1412.2677v3.pdf was resubmitted on March 23 and assigned to an editor on March 24.
Any news about publication of Gill's rebuttal?
Pity that PubPeer will not allow the truth about Gill to be told. He needs to be exposed.
No Peer 1, you cannot say that on PubPeer. Attack the science, not the scientist.
Meanwhile Gill's own paper has been completely discredited elsewhere on PubPeer:https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B475C637F666CC1D3E3A314522#fb27380 .
No, Peer 1. You cannot deduce that my purpose in correcting (usually: adding to) past posts is to mislead the scientific community. Alleging that that is my purpose, is slander...
The fact remains that Gill has a nasty habit of revising his earlier posts *after* reading the subsequent replies to them, in attempt to mislead the scientific community...
From the PubPeer FAQ: Q: What sort of comments are allowed/prohibited? All scientific discussion relevant to a given publication is encouraged...
The above comments by Gill confirm that his earlier claims on this page, as well as his electronic notifications to RetractionWatch that his error-filled preprint had been accepted by IJTP, were false.
I will let you know whether or not it is accepted. I delayed revising and resubmitting till close to the deadline (beginning of April)...
The above comments by Gill confirm that his error-filled preprint has *not* been accepted by IJTP.
I have made a minor further revision to http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677, following suggestions of the referees of IJTP, and submitted the revision to the journal...
As yet there is no evidence that the proposed experiment has been performed as specified.And as yet there is no evidence that Gill's error-filled preprint has been accepted by IJTP...
Has the experiment described in the paper been done? Should the IJTP assume a position regarding which of the two contradictory papers is correct?
Gill's supposed "critique" of the author's IJTP paper is a classic straw-man argument, and it is based on *elementary* algebraic and conceptual mistakes: http://arxiv...
UnReg, thanks for bringing us back on topic. Unfortunately you don't seem to notice the claim of the original posting (now supported by IJTP's acceptance of my critique; IJTP, which, as I remind you…
Anyways, getting back on topic here... So Dr. Christian has a classical local realistic model that gives the same prediction as quantum mechanics...
Gill's supposed "critique" of the author's IJTP paper is a classic straw-man argument, and it is based on *elementary* algebraic and conceptual mistakes: http://arxiv...
My critique of Christian's paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1412.2677 has been accepted by IJTP, subject to minor revision. The referees asked me to be more explicitly devastating (I was too polite and…
That discussion has been over for a long time, with elementary and fatal errors exposed: https://pubpeer.com/publications/D985B475C637F666CC1D3E3A314522#fb25059 .
Peer 1: ( January 24th, 2015 2:58pm UTC ): "PS: On the contrary, what *is* confirmed is that Gill is once again unable to recognize his elementary mistakes even after they have been pointed out to…
It is not surprising that Gill has once again stooped to infantile sarcasm, since all his misguided attempts to discredit the author's incisive work have been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted,http://a…
Unregistered submitter: we already have snarXiv. http://davidsd.org/2010/03/the-snarxiv/
"The exceedingly simple rule of algebraic element addition states the coefficients attached to identical basis elements within the two algebraic elements are added to form the final result...
Unregistered Submission: ( February 12th, 2015 2:18am UTC ) said,"You obviously are unfamiliar with the rules of an n dimensional algebra (not MY rules now, universally accepted, been around a lot…
It is worth noting here that the fantastical claims made by the Unregistered Submitter ( February 12th, 2015 2:18am UTC ) in quite a few of his/her posts are completely unfounded...
Well, so much for the last word. But this will be my last. I am SO done with the nonsense coming out of some posters here. Sad that they are all Christian's supporters...
"First trial, the orientation might be +1, second trial the orientation might be +1 again, third trial the orientation might be -1. There is absolutely nothing wrong with adding up the sum of the…
@Unregistered Submission: ( February 10th, 2015 11:37am UTC )Also, it is important to note that the new method of detecting the spin directions --- i...
US 11th @12:19am: As long as you are giving me "the last word", let me do it. First a quote from Lee Smolin's FQXi essay he recently put up for the current essay contest:"Why does algebra turn out to…
The author also has nice comments on this issue here: http://libertesphilosophica.info/blog/ .
Splendid, Jay. I agree wholeheartedly. Especially with your stance on anonymity. Anonymity seems to bring out the worst in people.The important thing to remember is that is that we should criticise…
Unregistered Submission: ( February 10th, 2015 6:59pm UTC ) said,"Joy Christian's eqs (112) are *his* justification for using fair coin choices of orientation to derive the Q...
US 6:45 pmI had cause recently to quote a piece from Einstein's unfinished quest for *The Relativistic Theory of Non-Symmetric Field:*"The transition from one inertial system to another is determined…
You can hold on to your delusion, US 6:59, and have the last word. The facts are that your arguments have all been refuted before, and that the IJTP referees vetted the paper for publication...
@Unregistered Submission: ( February 10th, 2015 11:37am UTC )"If the fragments rapidly reshape to spheres the determination of spins is much easier...
U.S. @10:07pm: This is the oddest response yet."Nonsense. General relativity is coordinate free. "What does this have to do with the author's fair coin orientation choices the quote of mine was about??
Unregistered Submission: ( February 9th, 2015 9:06pm UTC ): "U.S. at 6:01pm: But you are right on very few counts. Up to diffeomorphism is equivalent to the statement there are no preferred frames of…
Peer 1: ( February 9th, 2015 2:58pm UTC )@Unregistered Submission: ( February 9th, 2015 10:35am UTC )There is a subtle issue concerning the exact determination of the directions of rotations...
A lot of people had accused that Einstein's famous 1905 paper on relativity was "junk" : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_theory_of_relativity#A_Hundred_Authors_Against_Einstein ...
Plagiarism is copy and paste without saying what your source is. Christian does give a reference for his "cuttings". The paper is junk. And the author tries to mislead the reader as to the content...
Unregistered @ 9:06 GMT "The problem with the author's premise is orientation choices lead to results that are also equivalent and the representation choice is thus quite arbitrary...
U.S. at 6:01pm: But you are right on very few counts. Up to diffeomorphism is equivalent to the statement there are no preferred frames of reference, all are equivalent, and there is a map between…
Right on all counts. Up to diffeomorphism describes boundary conditions of differential geometry even if the difference is trivial. Nice discussion here, by Kenneth S...
Gill mentioned a big copy-and-paste. Any reasonable person would see that as an accusation of plagiarism.
Peer 8, read Section 4 of Christian's paper. Three paragraphs into the description of the experiment there is a remark about placing balls over a heater at the center of the experimental setup, at…
@Unregistered Submission: ( February 9th, 2015 10:35am UTC )There is a subtle issue concerning the exact determination of the directions of rotations...
Peer 1: ( February 8th, 2015 5:58pm UTC ): "What is more, the whole set up must be in a vacuum tube and in a free fall to compensate for air resistance and earth's gravity...
Unregistered Submission: ( February 8th, 2015 7:49pm UTC )"In general relativity torsion is always zero."That's why the theory applies "up to diffeomorphism...
Peer 8: "Is Gill now making false accusations of plagiarism?"I am tempted to say,Yes, but I will not stoop to his level. I will let him answer your question.
I know that Gill misrepresents and fabricates other people's words and cynically tries to violate PubPeer's anonymity, but plagiarism is a very serious charge, that could attract legal action...
Peer 8: " "a big passage copy-pasted from Peres"Are you accusing Christian of plagiarism? "Gill is simply lying, and misrepresenting and twisting the facts...
"a big passage copy-pasted from Peres"Gill, are you accusing Christian of plagiarism?