As this is maybe a first point of agreement between Fleury and myself I promised to make of it a post.
In a recent comment he wrote:
The question of cell vortices and stream lines is nonsensical.
I totally agree with that. The absence of L2/R2 visualization make them nonsensical. And the « stream lines » seem probably nonsensical to me and are certainly not yet supported by evidence.
Let’s see why I connected them. Err… I didn’t connected them, Fleury made the connexion. And he’s the same that claim the four vortices and the « stream lines ».
Let’s see the story board with a luxury of links.
In #1 of my discussion on EPMAG I pointed to the fact that in the introduction only two vortices are presented, by the only author of the paper, that is Vincent Fleury. And I pointed out that there was no mention of the four vortices claimed later on in his website:
So, the model is based on the presence of two vortices, schematically presented at fig 2. Later, Fleury presented us four vortices, each causing the budding necessary to form a limb. But this late hypothesis, implicating four vortices, isn’t presented in this paper. I haven’t see it in another of Fleury’s papers; so it goes as unpublished, not yet peer-reviewed, as well as unsupported by data.
In the comments of this post, Fleury answered: (emphasis added here)
Oh, sorry I forgot, the 4 vortices are in the organogenesis paper, if you can read,a nd also in the Phys Rev paper.
So, can I read or not? I gave it another run, but didn’t found any mention of four vortices of cells. And asked for precision.
Oh, where exactly?
Fleury’s reply was in his always charming manner: (emphasis added here)
completely ridiculous, nonsensical, wrong, defamatory etc.
if you cannot even spot the four vortices in Fig 6 of the paper “An elasto plastic model of avian gastrulation” you have nothing to do in science and your pseudo review of my paper is just nothing
Well, in fig 6 there are « stream lines » shown, not the four expected vortices, so I gave it another try:
a) you don’t want to help by saying where exactly the four vortices are shown, mentioned in “An Elasto-Plastic…” Not kind of you. But I do understand, the last time you tried to show them you produced an horrible mistake.
Let me help you with: “It requires a huge cellular motion which has the shape of two vortices converging towards the posterior pole an along the antero-posterior (AP)”. Remember? You wrote that!
Not a good idea, the outcome being: (emphasis added here)
a) you don’t want to help by saying where exactly the four vortices are shown,
the answer to that was clear enough:
“if you cannot even spot the four vortices in Fig 6 of the paper “An elasto plastic model of avian gastrulation” you have nothing to do in science and your pseudo review of my paper is just nothing”
if you do not understand that two dipoles head on generate 4 vortices, as shown in Fig 6 of that paper,
your brain is off
If your fingers are not, please put here the figure in question, I give you permission.
So, Fleury established the connexion between the « stream lines » of fig 6 and the four vortices, two of them being the L2/R2 I’m trying to locate. Clearly, twice, affirmatively and suspecting that if one is not able to make the connexion his brain is off. This was on october 19.
I presented fig 6 and discussed it. His reply is certainly quite scientific and with brain on ON position. And he offered confirmation. That is, to be clear to people that wouldn’t follow links: « oh dear how “beeeep” »
Then, suddenly, the question became nonsensical.
- The guy first tried to locate them making a mistake.
- Then he pretended that the four vortices were present in the paper.
- Then he considered that my inability to see the connection between « stream lines » and cells’ vortices was due to « brain off ».
- As an answer to the remark that he messed up considering the result (« stream lines ») to be the cause (cells’ movements) he simply replied « oh dear how “beeeep” »
- Now the question is nonsensical.
No, no cell vortices presented in EPMAG, but he say so…
We progress. But, he should have told me at first! Two months ago.
And, if he really thinks the question is nonsensical, why did he tried to answer it producing nonsensical drawings? Pretending he have presented the four cell vortices in EPMAG? And making the confusion between « stream lines » and « cell vortices » (IMO, another mistake).
What made him change his mind?
If the question is really nonsensical should he ask for a corrigendum at Organogenesis as he seems to consider that he discussed it in EPMAG?
Maybe by the same occasion he could ask to reconsider the « sandwich » composition as recently it have changed, from a stiff membrane (ECM in the text)/cells layer/stiff membrane(ECM in the text), to something different:
The structure of the sandwich does not matter. The structure of the top plate has no importance, there may even be no top plate at all, the system may aswell be a simple mix of an extra cellular matrix and cells.
Is it, also, a nonsensical question to ask WTF the description of the « sandwich » is doing in the paper if it doesn’t matter?
And this is an open question to physicist, if there are any around, other then Fleury: I always read about Poiseuille flow as being the flow of a viscous fluid in a channel. Would it apply to a viscous fluid, fluid by analogy, not constrained by an upper membrane as in the new « sandwich » definition?