[Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
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
Fwd: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
-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
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 establishment doesn't want to deal with your theory. To be honest I'm not in a position to judge the merits of your controversial theories. Nevertheless, I often tend to sympathize with the minority report POV, and as such, would like to see your views at least get equal time. It seems to me that your critics have potentially sowed the actual seeds of their eventual downfall. By that I mean you might want to focus on clarifying in subsequent papers what it is that your critics are missing in their review of your theories. Many of your critics seem to be insinuating the assumption you don't really understand certain fundamental laws of physics. At least that is what they are attempting to paint you as: Someone who is basically ignorant, eccentric, deluded, and as such, why should they give you and your zany ideas the time of day. At this point it is now up to you to state as clearly as you can that yes you DO clearly understand their concerns, that you DO understand the laws of physics as clearly they have stated them to be, and how the established theories differ from your theories AND WHY. Give your readers reasons as to why they might want to reconsider the rigidity of certain fundamental assumptions in physics in favor of pursuing your theories. Finally, are there experiments that can be performed to falsify the validity of your theories. Are there experiments that can be performed that clearly show why your theories might more accurately predict what Nature is doing as compared to what the prevailing theories predict Nature ought to be doing? Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
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
Re: [Vo]:as expected my paper was rejected
Frank, I've just picked up that you have a theory on Cold Fusion. I haven't been following this list very closely, so I'm slow I suppose. But: 1) Have you published your ideas anywhere? Perhaps on the internet? Is there a way for me to learn more of your theory? 2) Do your ideas explain any of Mill's work and his theory on Classical Quantum Mechanics? Craig (Houston)
