The thorny way of truth - Free Energy Community

235 -Mord'cnfoHc-.r.'^e 16 25 April 1990A-8010 GRA2 — AUSTRIATel. 0316/377093Ms. E. H. ChionhEditor of MPLAFarrer RoadP.O.Box 128Singapore 9128I'k-tDear Ms.Chionh,Thank you very much for your letter of the 18 April, although, I must confess, therejection of my paper PROPULSIVE AND ROTATING AMPERE BRIDGES VIOLATE THE PRINCIPLEOF RELATIVITY was, of course, not pleasant for me.I consider the objections of the referee untenable. Here are my motivations.I refer to certain books published by me. The referee objects that such a referencingis not consistent with a research paper. He has no right for such an assertion,as any author can refer to ANY PUBLISHED BOOK. It is true that I have a WHOLE seriesof papers (with an extreme importance) which are published only in my books. All thesepapers have been SUBMITTED to research journals and rejected as they contradict the.theory of relativity which is accepted as true by the establishment. All my papersare based on EXPERIMENTAL evidence. This evidence DRASTICALLY contradicts the theoryof relativity. The only way to bring the information on my experiments to the scientificcommunity is the publication of my papers in research journals.The second objection of the referee is that my paper "more suitable for an engineeringjournal than Modern Physics Letters". My paper shows the untenability of a fundamentalPHYSICAL theory. This problem is NOT an engineering problem. The fact that myexperiment is childishly simple and any engineer can reconstruct it is NOT a motivationthat the paper is an "engineering paper".Another objection of the referee is that "the reader does not get totally convincedby the claims in the paper". If the referee has certain questions or some aspects ofmy experimental setup and theoretical explanation of the effects is not clear to him,he has to ask me. Otherwise his assertion is GROUNDLESS. If the referee would like tohave some "calibration studies" of my experimental setup, he has to note WHICH.I know very well that the claims of my experiment will be UNPLEASANT for ANY supporterof the principle of relativity. But an experiment is AN EXPERIMENT. And its resultsMUST BE ACCEPTED.I can further discuss with the present referee only if he will answer the followingfour questions (by "yes", "no", or "I do not know"):1. Will the Rotating Ampere Bridge with Sliding Contacts rotate when current willbe sent ?2. Is the rotation of the rotor due only to internal forces?3. Is there an interaction of the currents in the conductors solid to the laboratorywith the currents in the conductors solid to the rotor supporting the rotation?4. If the referee has answered the first question by "yes", will be a back electromotivetension induced in the rotor's conductors? (Of course, also questions 2 and 3must be answered only if question 1 is answc ed by "yes".)I repeat, if the referee will not answer these four questions, I do not like to maintainany contact with him. As I am sure that the referee will deny to give answers tothese questions, I beg you to send my paper (with the referee's comments and my presentletter) to an arbitrator who has to decide whether the paper must be rejected oraccepted.I submit also another VERY IMPORTANT paper (in a single copy)CHILDISHLY SIMPLE EXPERIMENT VIOLATING THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY.The PACS number is 03.30. Additional numbers 03.50, 41.10.Please, acknowledge the reception of this letter and send me in due time your finaldecision. /O //y^ >Sincerely yours, /J. M^^^WEditorial note. This letter is answered by Stefan MarinovMs. Chionh with her letter of the 14. IX. 90.