Did you know the Paul stole his exclusion principle from Goudsmit and Uhlenbeck? This cannot happen in this age of digital information. Reject as they will I have already published in IE and at Amazon.
I was going to expand Equation #26 in the form of the cross product of the nuclear velocity and the radius rc. Equation #23 then gives the up and down spins of the electron. With differing n's and the cross product produces the S, P, D, and F orbits, of the atoms, as a condition of matching velocity. Good thing that I did not go through the trouble, the reviewer did not comprehend the basics. I have found that the they look at your name and organization first and then find a way to reject your paper. -----Original Message----- From: fznidarsic <fznidar...@aol.com> To: vortex-l <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 7:57 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff Thank you Daniel. I posted a pdf at the link below. http://www.angelfire.com/scifi2/zpt/pdf/refactoring.pdf Frank Znidarsic -----Original Message----- From: Daniel Rocha <danieldi...@gmail.com> To: John Milstone <vortex-l@eskimo.com> Sent: Wed, Feb 6, 2013 7:30 am Subject: Re: [Vo]:Fwd: Same Old stuff Where is the preprint of the paper so that we can take a look? 2013/2/6 <fznidar...@aol.com> 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. - -- Daniel Rocha - RJ danieldi...@gmail.com
