Re: A letter to Professor Alwyn van der Merwe, Editor of "Foundation of Physics (Letters)"

Dear Michael,
First of all especially for you I note concerning money. The including
of spin into the classical electrodynamics will be rewarded with the
Nobel prize. Do you think the including is relevant to today's physics?

Additionally, the correction of Maxwell electrodynamics will entail
rewriting of many thousands of textbooks and monographs.
Do you think the scientific community will allow such the future? I
doubt because they rejected my papers more then 350 times during 7
years. But I am interested in how can they avert the future?
Now their tactic is simple. They answer nothing. I received an answer
from Professor Alwyn van der Merwe.
He simple repeated his stock phrase:

"Sent : Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:15 AM
Dear Dr. Khrapko:
I much regret that your paper entitled [as above] ("Defects of the
general field theory") is, relatively speaking (i.e., considering the
restraints imposed by our fixed annual page budget), not of sufficient
interest for the purposes of our journal. In practical terms, it (they)
is (are) unlikely to survive our strict reviewing process; my editorial
guidelines require at least two favorable reports for publication of
any submitted paper; three or more for controversial papers."

I could think, that Professor Alwyn van der Merwe is the name of an
automatic device, but there was a postscript:
"P.S. You might want to try Ann.Fond.L.de B.or Physics Essays."

Well, I will send eight my papers to "Physics Essays", but I want to
note that an intentional concealment of serious longstanding mistakes
of physicists is a crime, because they get pay and grants.

However, I hope that Professor Alwyn van der Merwe is uncomprehending
rather then criminal though he rejected 7 my papers without reviewing.
I know many examples of an incomprehension. E.g. Dr. Kawata wrote, "the
ratio of energy to spin is equal to angular frequency for the circular
polarized plane wave ONLY." (see my post Marasmus of "Optics
Communications" editors).
Do you think such physicists can write something worthwhile relevant to
today's physics?

At the same time I try to improve my papers methodically to make
difficulties for them incomprehension.
I think even you will stay on my side if you read my last paper
"Paradox of the classical Beth optics experiment" submitted to JOPA on
July 5, 2006 (see www.sciprint.org)

Radi Khrapko

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: moment of inertia of a cube
    ... on all past papers - but if I can do it during an exam only time will tell. ... A to get to reduced row echelon form, ... Interestingly most students seem not to be math majors - mostly physics, ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv PEER/PUBLISHED
    ... Hammond calling someone else a crackpot. ... > few of the PhD's in Physics, ... although his webpage is pretty detailed, ... > papers on RELATIVITY including several papers by himself ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: GOD=G_uv PEER/PUBLISHED
    ... Hammond calling someone else a crackpot. ... > few of the PhD's in Physics, ... although his webpage is pretty detailed, ... > papers on RELATIVITY including several papers by himself ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)
  • Re: Quantum Gravity 208.8: Hartle, Hawking, and Witten Restore Superstrings and Black Holes and Quan
    ... What testable predictions have been made by quantum gravity and subsequently ... The papers are respectively "The no-boundary measure of the universe," ... theories on as good a footing as Local Quantum Physics if not better. ... theory is automatically algebraic geometry and/or algebraic topology, ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: HOCUS POCUS
    ... I gave you references to the papers at the time. ... If you're hoping that physics ... Marcel Luttgens ...
    (sci.physics.relativity)