A. F. Kracklauer wrote:
" I have been promissed (threatened?) by now about 70 renowned "experts," that as soon as they found time, they were going to write a devastating critique. After 15 years, none have found time! Is that credible?"
I've yet to make it to the library so don't take this as a value judgment. But what you write here at SAGG sounds a lot like:
Points 1, 16, 17, and 21
http://insti.physics.sunysb.edu/~siegel/quack.html
In short, if you are legitimate, you are not doing yourself any favors with the attitude and it is little wonder you are being treated as a crackpot. Nor do your explanations, above, explain anything.
I read two of your papers, #18 and #19 from your link, and to say I am wholly unimpressed would be a statement of fact. My first impression is lots of sound and fury signifying nothing.
How long has it been since you've been in a university research lab? If an absence of non-locality is to be proven it is not with a pencil.
