I am going for turkeydinner now. I will post the rejected paper for all to read tomorrow.
-----Original Message----- From: OrionWorks - Steven Vincent Johnson <orionwo...@charter.net> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Thu, Nov 25, 2010 12:40 pm Subject: RE: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected Frank, In regards to the rejection letter: ... > 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. The first paragraphs strikes me as quite revealing. No wonder the physics stablishment doesn't want to deal with your theory. To be honest I'm not in a position to judge the merits of your controversial heories. Nevertheless, I often tend to sympathize with the "minority eport" POV, and as such, would like to see your views at least get equal ime. It seems to me that your critics have potentially sowed the actual seeds of heir eventual downfall. By that I mean you might want to focus on larifying in subsequent papers what it is that your critics are "missing" n their review of your theories. Many of your critics seem to be nsinuating the assumption you don't really understand certain fundamental aws of physics. At least that is what they are attempting to paint you as: omeone who is basically ignorant, eccentric, deluded, and as such, why hould they give you and your zany ideas the time of day. At this point it s now up to you to state as clearly as you can that yes you DO clearly nderstand their concerns, that you DO understand the laws of physics as learly they have stated them to be, and how the established theories differ rom your theories AND WHY. Give your readers reasons as to why they might ant to reconsider the rigidity of certain "fundamental" assumptions in hysics in favor of pursuing your theories. Finally, are there experiments that can be performed to falsify the validity f your theories. Are there experiments that can be performed that clearly how why your theories might more accurately predict what Nature is doing as ompared to what the prevailing theories predict Nature ought to be doing? egards Steven Vincent Johnson ww.OrionWorks.com ww.zazzle.com/orionworks
