Google Group Guidelines and Motivation

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Dear all,

I thank Alexandre de Castro for his involvement in calming the group.

First: Diether wanted clarification of Alexandre’s rules, and I copy from Google Groups these guidelines:

Prohibited Content and Behavior
Users of Google Groups must adhere to the following key rules of conduct:
Child Safety: Google has a zero-tolerance policy for content that exploits or abuses children, including child sexual abuse imagery. Violators' accounts are terminated and reported to law enforcement.

Hate Speech: Content that promotes hatred or violence against groups based on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, religion, disability, gender, or sexual orientation is prohibited.

Harassment and Bullying: Do not harass, bully, or threaten others. This includes stalking, exposing private information (doxxing), and unwelcome sexual attention.

Violence and Violent Organizations: Do not post threats of violence or content that encourages violent action. Known violent non-state organizations and movements are banned from using the platform for any purpose.

Personal and Confidential Information: Publishing another person's private information, such as credit card numbers, Social Security numbers, or unlisted phone numbers, without authorization is not allowed.

Illegal Activities and Regulated Goods: Do not use Groups to engage in, promote, or provide instructions for illegal acts (e.g., selling illegal drugs) or the sale of regulated goods like weapons, tobacco, or alcohol.

Spam and Malware: Spam, including creating groups solely for promotional purposes, and distributing viruses or malicious code are strictly forbidden.

Impersonation: Do not impersonate a person or organization, or otherwise misrepresent your identity in a way that is likely to mislead your audience.

Adult Content: Adult content is permitted only if the group is specifically marked as "adult" in its settings, and it must not be used as a way to make money.

For my part, I will follow these rules and hope others do too.  I will not engage with those who violate them.  Ad hominem attacks, intellectual bullying, and inappropriate language are not acceptable.  This does not mean we cannot have heated intellectual debates and disagreements, but they must be respectful, intellectually engaging and academically supported.

I encourage remaining members to appeal to those who left the group to return. For my part I copy this to Jan-Ake Larrson, Richard Gill and Joy Christian.

Second, I take this opportunity to express the reasons I am on this Forum, and I invite others to please give us their reasons. It allows us to see topics important to others, and for these we can: simply read these new ideas; jump in for clarifications; and engage with our ideas that support or not, to academically argue points. It helps focus.

Here are my current interests, and they have been modified due to Diether’s paper, you know the link, which raised flags and prompted me to analyse his paper, submit it as a rebuttal, and to invite responses.  In doing so, this small paper led me to find objective errors in Joy Christian’s papers over the last 20 year.  Since the title of this group concerns Bell’s work, the topic is relevant and long overdue. So today I started a thread which is titled,
1.       Is Diether and Christian’s disproof of Bell’s theorem correct?

Joy seems to have left the group, but I invite him to engage to defend his ideas that span 20 years and at least 21 papers.

Another motivation is the long and, for me, confusing and frustrating debate about EPR correlations. Do they add or average when there is more than one source?  This topic is also clearly within the Bell domain, and I have not been able to articulate it properly, beyond replying to critics that spin has complementary domains: polarization and coherence.  My response to Diether, however, allowed me a cogent argument which is the second topic I am interested in.
2.       Adding or averaging EPR correlations from different sources.

I hope that these topics encourage Richard and Jan-Ake and others to return to discuss this.  This should not be a long debate, but I think it is a relevant and important topic to try to finalize. This topic will be posted in due course.

My third reason, which I will not start yet, is also in the purview of Bell and the foundations. This is to attempt to express my reasons to replace the SM of physics based on fermions as fundamental, with the Bivector SM, BiSM, in which spin 1 bosons, (bivectors), are fundamental. In the BiSM, fermions are the polarized blades of bivectors. After 100 years of Dirac’s solution to the KG equation, and the empirical success of the SM, this might seem a futile goal, but I assert that Dirac chose to linearize the KG equation with algebra Cl(1,3) and I proposed a second linearization based on Cl(2,2).  Only one can be correct, and I will give my views with the goal:
3.        To replace the SM with the BiSM

I will express my reasons for this and am keenly interested to hear the views of others, especially those who are well versed in QFT and can engage with their views and critiques.

Today, I started the new tread on topic 1.

Regards to all,

Bryan

[Richard Gill]

I have applied to rejoin the group.

I hope the group owner Alexandre will actively enforce not just the standard Google rules but also Bryan Sanctuary’s request to add “Ad hominem attacks, intellectual bullying, and inappropriate language are not acceptable.  This does not mean we cannot have heated intellectual debates and disagreements, but they must be respectful, intellectually engaging and academically supported”.

I suggest he recruits one of the members to co-manage the group.

My personal research interest at the moment is in the current wave of publications supporting super-determinism (violation of statistical independence), championed (or at least, taken seriously by) by Tim Palmer, Jonte Hance, Sabine Hossenfelder and Emily Adnam. My reason for this is recent work by a Dutch friend, Engel Wichmann, see https://zenodo.org/search?q=metadata.creators.person_or_org.name%3A%22Wichmann%2C%20Engel%20Franciscus%22&l=list&p=1&s=10&sort=bestmatch

Yours

Richard

Sent from my iPad

[Bryan Sanctuary]

Fred Diether,

Your responses to me and others in the group indicate that you are unable to engage constructively. Your replies to all who raise questions and/or attempt to discuss with you, are met with polemics that serve no purpose.

You do not seem to realize that you are surrounded here by people who are much smarter than you and know considerably more.  Some tried to set you straight on issues. Your response is: insult, spam your own paper, and add phrases that quickly become hackneyed.

A serious scientist would have discussed the challenge with colleagues and formulate a professional and academic response that defends your position. You did not because you are unable.  You are simply out of your depth.  You do not seem to have a clue as to what I, and others, are saying.

From now on I will ignore you, and I encourage everyone in this group to do the same.  Otherwise, your rants will continue, and the group will be shut down. 

Let us close this link and discuss Diether’s paper no more. 

Diether is wrong bigtime.

Govern yourself accordingly

Bryan Sanctuary

On Thu, Jan 8, 2026 at 3:18 PM Fred Diether <fredi...@gmail.com> wrote:

Welcome back.  Now we can really have some fun.  LOL!

BS is a traitorous nutcase that definitely should not be saying what the rules should be since he is an obvious sociopath.  I already gave Alexandre a good list of rules to implement.  Until he does, it is the wild wild west here.

Local Quantum Mechanical Prediction of the Singlet State Using Geometric Algebra

https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=147271

Bell was wrong big time.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bell inequalities and quantum foundations" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to Bell_quantum_found...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/Bell_quantum_foundations/c7e747ac-8658-47ef-8131-e94d232e05a1n%40googlegroups.com.