Back

ANALYZED REJECTION

[Heading for magazine]

 

March 4, 2005

Mr. Lew Price
P O Box 88
Garden Valley, CA 85633

Dear Lew:

Thank you for submitting your paper, "Gravity," to [magazine].

I regret to inform you that the paper has not been accepted for publication. The reviewer, an expert in Newtonian and quantum physics, perhaps did not provide as much technical substance as you would like to see to better understand the reason for the rejection of the paper. I will, however, share some of his comments with you.

[According to my dictionary, a "peer" in this context is "an equal as to natural gifts or in social rank". When papers or articles in science are submitted for peer review, social rank is not what is needed (although the many PhD's seem to believe that they are above everyone else). So let us assume that in this case, a peer review is a review by one who is an equal as to natural gifts. This means that the reviewer must be equal in natural gifts to the person who is submitting something that supposedly sets him apart as an expert in his own field.

Usually the one submitting the paper or article has been working with his theory or his experiments for many years and has an intimate knowledge of his own work. Yet this peer who is to review the paper or article is allowed to judge the work submitted even though he knows very little about it, has a limited interest in it at best, and may not even be bright enough understand it regardless of how long he spends at the task. Any new and truly revolutionary idea could never be evaluated by such a "peer" except in light of his own limited experience. The idea does not conform to his limited views, so he tosses it out. The more revolutionary the idea, the more likely that it will be blocked by the reviewer. And because he cannot understand it, he uses anything but a critique of the theory and its back-up math as an excuse to dispose of it.

In this context, why is an expert in Newtonian and quantum physics considered a peer to someone who has been intimately involved in work that only a well qualified general engineer (someone who has critiqued and coordinated the work of consulting engineers in various disciplines for over twenty years) can hope to judge. If he should be an equal in natural gifts, it would not be gifts in even remotely the same field of endeavor. Should it be argued that the reviewer is gifted in the same field, why hasn't he discovered a new theory for gravity (which has already been reviewed and acclaimed by those who can understand it).

What the present system does is allow only the mediocre to be published provided that they think within the prescribed box.]

In addition to the paper being too lengthy with too much use of first person, the reviewer had the following critiques:

[In my experience, editors are supposed to be able to cut things that they feel are superfluous or to ask the author to shorten the article if possible. The use of third person which usually consists of saying "the author" rather than "I" or "me" is considered stilted and poor writing. This is according the advanced classes I had in English, according to the way I was asked to write throughout my engineering career, and according to the way I have written as a successful professional author for many years. However, the use of first person can easily be changed to third person in the instances where it is found. The editor need only ask the author to do so.

I was given no guidelines for article length. I would have preferred to make the article longer as the totality of the unified theory was needed to properly assess the argument for gravity. In the past, longer articles have been allowed in the magazine - some of them very long. My article was approximately 12,000 words long when considering the space taken by the illustrations. Most of the longer articles in the more recent issues of the magazine come to about 9,000 words which includes the reviewer's editorial in this case. Unfortunately, upon examining the article critically, I realized cutting to 9,000 words or less would prevent the complete presentation of the necessary arguments for my theory. This constitutes a bureaucratic means of censorship by the reviewer.]

In the beginning of the paper, the author defines "m=M/t" and "M=mt" with "m" for mass, "t" for time, and "M" for Mass of medium inflow per unit of time; however, these equations are a dimensional absurdity, given these definitions for variables. Later in the same paragraph, M is redefined to the Mass of the medium. This is very inconsistent and confusing.

[The paragraph mentioned follows:


          If the electron is a vortex, it must be composed of an inflowing medium. It's mass would be measured as the "Mass" (using a capital "M") of the medium inflow per unit of time. So m = M/t or M = mt where "M" is the mass of the medium, "m" is mass as we know it, and "t" is time. If light is a wave within such a medium the speed of light would be the radial reaction speed of the medium. If the center of the vortex is a vacuum, the radial velocity of the medium at the center would be the speed of light. Should the inflow suddenly cease, the kinetic energy of the inflow would be released and would be equal to mc2 or (M/t)c2 where M is the Mass of the medium. So: Ek = mc2

Obviously, I explained three times within the paragraph that "M" is the "Mass" of the medium. This was to emphasize the nature of "Mass" versus "mass" and there was no lack of consistency. Furthermore, the use of an upper case "M" is quite appropriate for a "Mass" which is the fundamental upon which our "mass" is based. This theory of gravity was first published in book form here in America in 1999. Since that time, it has been published in a Russian magazine, a Russian book, has been read by hundreds of people, and studied by at least two hundred qualified and interested people, many of whom have become enthusiastic supporters of the theory. This is the first time that anyone has ever mentioned being confused by my use of "Mass" versus "mass". The paragraph in question was prefaced by another paragraph to make an easy transition for the reader. Yet, the reviewer was not able to understand either the language or the reason for the language. Why?]

A dynamic ether can be considered simply to be an ether; there is no need to give it some new name such as "nether."
["Ether" is a name given to a substance to which was attributed certain specific properties in the nineteenth century. New mediums with new names and qualities have been and are being proposed today. The use of the name "ether" often creates confusion when new substances are proposed. Nether is a substance with very distinct and unique properties which are shown to be valid through proofs and reasoning. Therefore, it is imperative to give a distinctly new name to this form of dynamic ether (the old ether was considered to be static) to distinguish it from the multiplicity of other proposed substances. Thus, it would appear that the reviewer has not done his homework so far as knowing that there are many other proposed qualities for newly proposed types of the medium through which light travels. It is also possible that he has not experienced the problems in communication that occur when one uses the name "ether" to explain a particular medium with new and distinctive properties.]
There are several examples of what can only be considered as modernistic gibberish, including: "...it is possible that matter is a rupture creating a hole in the nether that allows nether to flow backward along the fourth dimension..." and "...the circle is the entrance to the fourth dimension..."
[From the following comment, it appears that the reviewer cannot understand ordinary English. Perhaps he has never heard of a rupture, a hole, a circle, or other such terms in use today. If he is uncomfortable with a fourth dimension, he must dislike Einsteinian physics and certainly would not be able to tolerate string theory long enough to even read about it. Since he has taken his objections out of context, he probably did not understand the context either. What words would he like one to use to explain a new concept? Perhaps Elizabethan English or that of the original English versions of the Arthurian legends would do?]
The author seems to to go off-track at one point, stating": "...the product of 256 and the square root of two is the frequency of an octave of F sharp in the musical scale of ancient China. This is the note upon which their musical and astrological scales were based - which causes me to wonder what they knew that we do not know..." Not to nit-pick on this minor point of all things, but I am not sure what "an octave" of F sharp is supposed to be; usually one says an octave above F sharp or an octave below F sharp.
[Apparently the reviewer is not aware that an octave up is a mere doubling of the original frequency or that an octave down is a halving of the frequency. This means that there are many octaves of a certain frequency classification. To explain all this and to also explain why the ancient Chinese would have preferred a particular octave for a pipe and why the nether inflow would show a particular octave would considerably lengthen the already long article. I have made part of my living with books that I have written on music. What I wrote is a normal way of speaking. It seems that the reviewer cannot understand a perfectly normal way of saying something. It would appear that, in his limited world, he cannot understand "an octave of F sharp".

Although, I would not consider this part of the article to be off-track, it could have been left out. The only consequence of leaving it out would have been less information for the reader.]

The author makes a number of sweeping claims, speculations, and generalizations without any theory or serious explanation to back up these claims. There are no references listed within the text of the paper to back up any of these claims.
[The references for the "sweeping claims, speculations, and generalizations" were mentioned at the beginning of the text and a bibliography was provided. Most of the back-up material is my own and often is not accepted by the reviewer because, for some unfathomable reason, good math is not considered as adequate as someone else's book. What I mentioned is backed up very adequately, but such material would lengthen the article excessively and I am not allowed to show it - another bureaucratic way to prevent a theory from being shown. Yet, the fact that such material exists is part of the argument for this theory of gravity.]

I know that this will likely not be the feedback you were hoping for. Our editors, based on their brief look at the paper and on the reviewer's comments, have agreed that the paper is not best suited for publication in [magazine].

[It is quite obvious that the theory and its back-up material were not addressed by the reviewer. Why? Isn't the technical reviewer supposed to review the theory? Is the reviewer supposed to act only as the petty bureaucrat who nit-picks his way through an article? Was the theory beyond his comprehension or was the theory too obviously easy to understand to be published in a magazine for high-fog-factor sophisticates?

This has been an example of what happens as the result of our present system. I am far from being the only one treated in this fashion. In fact, my treatment is far better in this instance than the usual treatment one receives today from American magazine editors. At the moment, I have no solution to offer. Obviously, a real technical review of submissions is necessary and the reviewers are biased about ninety-nine percent of the time. The reviewers are chosen for their adherence to current dogma which has placed them in high regard by those who think inside the box. Many times, the reviewer is merely a parasite who can write a good resume' but is unsuited to make his way as a benefactor to humanity. Perhaps real science has been ignored too long for it to ever recover.]

Thank you for your patience in awaiting the decision on your manuscript.
 

Sincerely,
[Signature]
[Name]
Managing Editor
 

Back