-----Original Message-----
From: fznidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com>
To: storms2 <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 12:09 pm
Subject: Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
I have taken a different approach. About 12 years ago when I was downsized
from the Pennsylvania Electric Company I used the free time as an opportunity
to presue cold fusion. I jumped at the opportunity to go back to college and
to learn physics and computer science. I worked to bring Yuri Patopov to Las
Alamos as a team with a local group. I visited Paterson in Florida and went to
NASA Marshall. Nothing happened. Three years later, I went back to work with
Alstom in a difficult and demanding job on which I focused on for 10 years. I
am again, due the economic condition and my age, out of work. This time was
different. I went to college to study Spanish (not physics). I am building
and testing cell phone adapters, safety devices for the mines. and ways to trap
bed bugs (no time to wasted on free energy devices). I hope to bring one of
these these things to market shortly. Non disclosures prevent me for saying
more. I only sent a paper to the meeting of the American Chem society because
I was invited. I am also invited to the Space and Propulsion International
forum to which I expect to come to the same end.
:Lane and the Alien Scientist asked to work with me, so I am helping them to
the best I can. Infinite Energy published my rejected papers and now I am on
record to what I have said. There is nothing more for me to do.
Frank Znidarsic
-----Original Message-----
From: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
To: fznidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com>
Cc: Edmund Storms <stor...@ix.netcom.com>
Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
Dear Frank,
I sympathize with your frustration in getting your work published. However, the
problem is at your end, not with the reviewers. I have read your work and come
to the same conclusion as the present reviewer even though I agree with you
that quantum theory is flawed and needs improvement. I suggest you need to
discuss your ideas with someone who understands the present theories and learn
to present your arguments in ways that other people can understand. Getting a
new idea understood is hard enough without having the additional handicap of
using words that have no meaning to other people. The videos you had made are
not helpful even though they will bring support from the uneducated.
The problem with all theory is that it is open ended and limited only by the
imagination. As a result, millions of variations on how nature can be
explained are available. The accepted ones are chosen based on what best
describes nature and on how well the ideas can be made understandable. For
example, no one paid much attention Einstein until he was able to show a clear
relationship between his ideas and something that could be measured and until
people began to translate his ideas into understandable language. You need to
find a measurement for which you can predict a value more accurately than
present methods. Or you need to find a behavior that is presently unexplained
and give a useful explanation. Your use of cold fusion is not good example of
this approach because your explanation is useless and not consistent with most
measurements. If you really want to have your ideas accepted rather than
wasting time being a victim, I suggest you take a different approach.
Regards,
Ed
On Nov 25, 2010, at 8:52 AM, fznidar...@aol.com wrote:
As expected my paper was rejected
Subject: Re: Here is my paper that was to be presented at ACS meeting next
spring.
Dear Dr Znidarsic,
I am sorry to inform you that your paper has been rejected for pblication in
the JCMNS.
Here are the comments of the referee:
I have looked at the paper "Quantization of Energy" by Frank Znidarsic as you
have asked. In this paper, Znidarsic points out various issues (such as
wave-particle duality) that were encountered during the development of quantum
mechanics, and in response has put forth a number of his thoughts which he
argues resolves the issues. In his paper, he seems to be concerned with the
notion of speed, and the notion of a transitional quantum state.
I do not recommend this paper for publication.
Quantum mechanics has been described as the most successful theory that has
been developed so far, and people use it every day for to understand particles,
light, atoms, molecules, and their interactions in every day applications to
obscure research applications.
Znidarsic seems for some reason not to be happy with the way that quantum
mechanics deals with atoms or light, or related issues. In response, he has
put forth his thoughts on various topics.
In his section on the energy of the photon, Znidarsic puts forth an argument
that seems to be based on the capacitance of a parallel plate capacitor to make
an argument which he claims allows him to derive the relation between a photon
energy and frequency, where he recognizes the ratio of charge to the product of
dielectric constant and a velocity as being Planck's constant.
In modern physics, Planck's constant does not have a derivation. Instead, we
tend to think of it as a fundamental constant, with a value that can be
determined from experiment.
If Znidarsic were able to derive Planck's constant for real, he would have a
major fundamental result. However, no physicist is going to agree with
Znidarsic's argument for the connection between the energy and frequency of a
photon. A physicist wants to see a physical argument that can be understood.
Znidarsic has not given an understandable physical argument. There are words
written down, and there are also some formulas. However, the words written are
not helpful in making a physical argument. The formulas seem vaguely connected
to the words.
Based on what has been written, one wonders whether Znidarsic understands the
physical principles behind Maxwell's equations, or the Schrodinger equation.
Is Znidarsic familiar with Dirac's quantization of Maxwell's equations, which
derives the connection between the photon energy and photon frequency using
very good physical arguments. Moreover, there are a great many experiments
that have been done which seem to strongly support Dirac's theory for the
quantized electromagnetic field.
I cannot recommend for the publication of this paper. The author seems not to
understand how to motivate or present a physical argument, he does not seem to
be familiar with basic ideas that appear in classic works on the problems he
addresses, and the ideas that he does put forth don't seem to make any sense.
Best regards
--
ean-Paul Biberian
