Convenience or Incompetence?

When you are interested in physics you must read “Unbelievable“!

The Mission Statement of the Society for Scientific Exploration states: “The primary goal of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science.”

Current Officers of SSE:
Professor Charles Tolbert, University of Virginia, President
Professor Robert Jahn, Princeton University, Vice President
Ms. Brenda Dunne, Princeton University, Education Officer
Professor Peter Sturrock, Stanford University, President Emeritus

Founding Committee:
Professor George Abell, University of California, Los Angeles
Professor Bart Bok, Steward Observatory
Professor Robert Creegan, State University of New York
Professor Persi Diaconis, Stanford University
Professor Thomas Gold, Cornell University
Professor Robert Jahn, Princeton University
Professor Roger Shepard, Stanford University
Professor George Siscoe, University of California, Los Angeles
Professor Ian Stevenson, University of Virginia
Professor Peter Sturrock, Stanford University
Professor Yervant Terzian, Cornell University
Professor William Thompson, University of California, San Diego
Professor James Trefil, Univeristy of Virginia
Professor Marcello Truzzi, Eastern Michigan University

In May 2005 I sent 3 hardcopies of the manuscript “The Derivation of Planck’s Constant” to SSE to be reviewed for publication in JSE.

If you want to read the article click here

JSE Managing  Editor
Allen Press
810 E. 10th St.
Lawrence, KS 66044
United States

Dear Allen Press,

In the past 6 1/2 years I have sent many articles to many science and physics journals. The articles have been rejected on the basis of not being topical; not relevant.

It is my opinion the rejection is caused new theoretical ideas countermarching established and traditional theses.

I hope that when you send the article to a referee you will realize that most theoretical physicists will strongly object, as they did in the past, because their expertise is questioned. Although this article handles sub-atomic physics the theory is so diverged from the standard point of view that any physicist can referee the article. Astronomy is a discipline of Theoretical Physics able to judge the article objectively. Astronomers are not less qualified than for example nuclear physicists.

I ask you to consider publishing the manuscript “The Derivation of Planck’s Constant” in the JSE-journal. The article is not under submission or published elsewhere.

From July 15th 2005 I will not be at home for approx. 1 year. I will not be able to look at my email more than once a month and I certainly will not be able to work on the article.

Therefore I suggest and authorize JSE that when JSE is interested to publish the manuscript within the year the necessary adjustments are made the editor. When that is the case I will pay the publication fee to JSE from where I am at that moment. When JSE is not interested I still expect the rejection will be sent to me.


Carel van der Togt

Subject:   JSE05-013

Received: Fri, 17 Jun 2005

Journal of Scientific Exploration

Dear Dr. van der Togt,

Thank you for your submission to the Journal of Scientific Exploration.
Your article, “The Derivation of Planck’s Constant,” will be reviewed
the editors and referees. I will notify you periodically regarding the
status of your manuscript during the review process. We understand that you
will be unable to work on the manuscript for the next year, but please note
that you are responsible for any revisions that the manuscript may require.

I also would like to mention that the Society asks for a donation to offset
the cost of printing the Journal. We do not mandate the payment of page
charges but do ask authors to make a donation, ideally of $30 per page, if
it is at all possible. If your manuscript is accepted for publication, we
will be in contact with you again. Don’t hesitate to contact me if you have
any questions or concerns.

Best wishes,

Christina K. Bolas
Assistant Managing Editor
Journal of Scientific Exploration
Tel: (785) 843-1234, x132
Fax: (785) 843-1244

Subject:  RE: JSE05-013

Sent: Sat, 2 Jul 2005

Dear Christina Bolas,

Thank you for the email. I know I will be responsible for any revisions.
I will pay the donation of $30,=/page with my credit card as soon as JSE
tells me to transfer the money and the publication date is settled.

I will end the agreement with my Internet provider so this email address
will become invalid. Please send all mailings concerning the revision and
publication to the email address

Please let me know as soon as possible if the paper is rejected.


Carel van der Togt

Subject: RE: JSE05-013

Sent: Tue, 5 Jul 2005 20:46:26 +0200

Dear Christina Bolas,

JSE received my article “The Derivation of Planck’s constant” for review.
In the article I make references to two yet not published articles. The editor
and the referee might want to read these articles. They can be found on the
opening page of my website

I also send these files now as attachments.


Carel van der Togt

Subject: JSE MS#05-013

Received: Wednesday, 13 July 2005 12:56:53 PM

Journal of Scientific Exploration 

Dear Dr. van der Togt, 

Your manuscript, entitled "The Derivation of Planck's Constant," was reviewed members of our editorial committee, and we regret that we are unable to accept the paper for publication in the Journal of Scientific Exploration. My reasoning follows: 

1)  The initial premise was not well researched. QM does provide many of the explanations that the author claims it does not.  I am not saying that QM is necessarily right, but the lack of  discussion of the matter leaves the paper in a very vulnerable position. 

2)  I do not get the sense that the author has a particularly firm grasp on how most physicists view QM.  There is an insistence, for example, on treating subatomic particles as possessing fundamental properties such as location and speed, things that QM says are consequences of observation. While the author does not have to buy that explanation, s/he at least must address it in a paper like this before someone could even know how to begin a meaningful review. 

3)  The paper still appears to be in rough draft form. This is particularly problematic relative to the references. Which leads to: 

4)  The references are insufficient. There has been a fair amount of work, for example, on space quantization, a subject that never appears in said references. 

I am sorry to have to send you this negative decision. We very much appreciate your considering the Journal of Scientific Exploration for the publication of your work. 


Henry H. Bauer 
Journal of Scientific Exploration

Subject: Convenience or Incompetence

Sent: Sunday, 17 July 2005 16:10:53 PM

Subject: JSE MS#05-013

Dear Prof. Dr. Henry H. Bauer,

I received your email concerning the rejection the Journal of Scientific Exploration and must say I was surprised the motivation of the rejection, because the editors of physics journals like Physics Letters A argue “If this paper would have been written between 1911 and 1924 it might have been an interesting contribution to science. But now…” and Physical Review A with “… new results in physics that significantly advance the field. Unfortunately, the manuscript does not contain sufficiently new results in physics to be considered for publication in Physical Review A”.

You say: (1) “The initial premise was not well researched. The lack of discussion leaves the matter in a very vulnerable position”. The manuscript “Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether” proves without any doubt that the premise of Einstein (SRT) that vacuum is absolutely empty space is false!

When this article would have been published before 1905 Einstein would never have written/published the articles concerning SRT because the all prevailing ether would be scientifically much more preferable. Where would science be when that had happened?

Objectively, considering the manuscript “Stellar Aberration and the Unjustified Denial of Ether”, you can argue science did not well research the premise of an absolute empty space before accepting SRT as the absolute truth.

Your second argument is that I do not have a firm grasp on how physicists view QM. I think I have, but QM is based on false assumptions. At the very basis of QM the premise that the electromagnetic theory cannot explain the mass of the electron is false. It is proven without any doubt in the manuscript “The Equivalence of Kinetic and Magnetic Energy”. QM blatantly violates the energy conservation law. The conclusion that there has to be a “mechanical” mass apart from the electromagnetic mass is false. How can one argue against QM when scientists expect you to accept false premises and than proof they are false! (When the roots are rotten the whole tree collapses.)

Your third and fourth arguments consider inadequate references. How can one make references when these references are not relevant and/or based on proven false premises! The mentioned articles I wrote have been totally ignored (all) mainstream science journals even while they prove that the most basic and important premises of SRT and QM are false! Why do scientists ignore and refuse to address omissions when they are discovered?

The Mission Statement of the Society for Scientific Exploration states: “The primary goal of the international Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE) is to provide a professional forum for presentations, criticism, and debate concerning topics which are for various reasons ignored or studied inadequately within mainstream science.”

Science ignores the unjustified denial of ether!
Science ignores the discovery of the false premise of the mechanical mass!
Science ignores the derivation of Planck’s constant; something QM cannot even come close to!
Science ignores the fact that the dragged ether explains exactly the drag coefficient measured Fizeau!
Science ignores the infinite contradictions QM and RT imply calling them definition paradoxes!
Science ignores more, much more! (Read the book)

Scientists committed to SSE and JSE are denying the primary goal of their Mission Statement when rejecting the manuscript on the arguments stated above.

The majority of the Current Officers and Founding Committee of SSE are theoretical physicists so it might be convenient for JSE not to publish and therefore not to embarrass fellow scientists.

I wonder whether the rejection of the manuscript is based on incompetence or convenience?

Prof. Bauer Theoretical Physics achieved with their mathematical solutions remarkable results. The omissions mentioned directed scientists in the wrong direction. In their relentless effort to solve sub-atomic mysteries the trial and error methodology to find solutions for experimental data leads to the “scientific” truth of relativity of time and space, parallel worlds, 11 dimensions, unlimited contradictions etc. When the omissions are addressed all this fictional science will disappear and physics will have just 3 dimensions and one independent natural constant less. The omissions introduce inconsistencies which are mathematically compensated when science accepts 11 dimensions, parallel world etc. There is no doubt that the mathematical solutions are brilliant, but one has to realize they are just empirical solutions and therefore unjustly elevated to the absolute truth.

A critical thinking scientist like you should at least consider this possibility. The articles addressing the omissions are short and simple and will be published in 2005 and 2006 the dissident physics journal Galilean Electrodynamics (GED). Mainstream scientists however ignore this journal so the publication will have no impact on science at all. It is not my intention to ridicule science. The assumed sub-atomic physical processes can however be very different from processes physicists think occur. It is possible that the imagined process of nuclear fusion differs from the present perspectives. When that is the case it is possible that nuclear fusion could be achieved with a different approach than thermal nuclear fusion. Should science not at least discuss the alternative when society needs an abundant clean energy source badly for future growth and preservation of nature. Which theoretical physicists would not object to an article that reveals Theoretical Physics is an empirical based science when scientists convinced the world their unbelievable fairytale is the absolute scientific truth?

I am very disappointed in science and scientists. Once I looked up to them, but now I would be embarrassed to be called “scientist”. The correspondence with SSE/JSE will be on the Internet for everyone to read. Ordinary people and history should know what institutions and which scientists are responsible for not addressing the hoax Theoretical Physics has become. The correspondence with SSE is displayed on the Internet on the website in the chapter “Incompetent Science” subchapter 7 “Convenience or Incompetence”.


Carel van der Togt