I set the velocity of sound in the nucleus = the velocity of light in the electronic structure and got the radii of the atoms, the energy and frequency of the photon, and the velocity of the atomic electrons. No cold fusion or anti-gravity was included. I would understand if he did not agree with the premise, however, how could he not get the thrust of the paper? They did send me a call for papers, why?
I regret that I have not been able to understand this paper. What I find here are equations from various areas of physics -- electrostatics, quantum mechanics, etc -- together with a a few general remarks about those equations. So, for example, it is not clear to me what is the central result in this paper. Is there, for example, being claimed a new physical theory? or some new predictions extracted from the old theory? My sense is that it is probably neither of these -- but that, rather, the claim is that these considerations lead to a better or deeper understanding of these equations. But I am afraid that I, having read this paper, simply do not have this sense. Indeed, I cannot honestly say that I have been able to get a good sense of what the is the thrust of the paper. For this reason, I do not feel that this paper is suitable for publication in the Foundations of Physics. -
