Chronology of Events in the Suppression of
Dr. LaViolette's Paper on the Electric Charge
and Magnetization Distribution in the Nucleon

© 2009, Paul A. LaViolette

 
1)

 1985 - 2007 Background of this Preprint Censorship by Arxiv.org:  Dr. LaViolette first published his subquantum kinetics theory in 1985 as a set of three papers which appeared in a special issue of the International Journal of General Systems that was dedicated to the exposition of the theory and its application of systems concepts to physics.  This was a landmark publication, being the first time that concept that previously had been developed to describe an open, chemical reaction system were being applied to describe microphysical phenomena, i.e., to model subatomic particles and waves.  In particular, it proposed the existence of a reaction-diffusion ether consisting of multiple etheric states, three of which were variable, and characterized by a sequence of ether reaction steps that resembled those characterizing the well known Brusselator reaction system.  One key aspect of the theory was that it modeled subatomic particles as Turing patterns.  Turing patterns, named after Alan Turing -- the man who first proposed their existence, are reactant concentration patterns that form in certain nonlinear, open reaction-diffusion media that function far-from-thermodynamic equilibrium.   The Brusselator-like reaction system proposed by subquantum kinetics was of this type.  As a result, it predicted that the electric field at the core of a subatomic particle should form a periodic dissipative structure.  This Turing pattern was characterized as having a Gaussian core potential surrounded by a stationary wave pattern, a radial periodicity that had a wavelength equal to the particle's Compton wavelength.       This theory, then, predicted an electric charge distribution in the core of a nucleon that was very different from that which physics assumed at that time.  That is, physicists commonly thought that the electric field at the center of the nucleon was cusp shaped, i.e., sharply rising to a peak and having no surrounding periodicity.  However, in 2002 a paper was published which reported the results of nucleon scattering experiments which demonstrated that the nucleon field was just as subquantum kinetics had predicted, Gaussian at its core and surrounded by a radial Compton wave periodicity.  To call attention to this confirmation of a key prediction of his theory, Dr. LaViolette wrote a paper entitled "The electric charge and magnetization distribution of the nucleon: Evidence of a subatomic Turing wave pattern" and on April 13, 2007 submitted it to the International Journal of General Systems.  The journal accepted this paper on November 29, 2007.  The paper's abstract is reproduced below.

Abstract. Subquantum kinetics, a physics methodology that applies general systems theoretic concepts to the field of microphysics has gained the status of being a viable unified field theory. Earlier publications of this theory had proposed that a subatomic particle should consist of an electrostatic field that has the form of a radial Turing wave pattern whose form is maintained through the ongoing activity of a nonlinear reaction-diffusion medium that fills all space. This subatomic Turing wave prediction now finds confirmation in recent nucleon scattering form factor data which show that the nucleon core has a Gaussian charge density distribution with a peripheral periodicity whose wavelength approximates the particle's Compton wavelength and which declines in amplitude with increasing radial distance. The subquantum kinetics explanation for the origin of charge correctly anticipates the observation that the proton's charge density wave pattern is positively biased while the neutron's is not. The phenomenon of beta decay is interpreted as the onset of a secondary bifurcation leading from the uncharged neutron solution to the charged proton solution. The Turing wave dissipative structure prediction is able to account in a unitary fashion for nuclear binding, particle diffraction, and electron orbital quantization. The wave packet model is shown to be fundamentally flawed implying that quantum mechanics does not realistically represent the microphysical world. This new conception points to the possible existence of orbital energy states below the Balmer ground state whose transitions may be tapped as a new source of energy.

 2)

Dr. LaViolette seeks endorsement to post his paper to the nonlinear sciences (pattern formation and solitons) category.

      Dr. LaViolette wished to post his paper to the physics internet archive (arxiv.org), his paper having recently been accepted for publication.  So, in February, 2007 he began seeking endorsement for his paper from a person named by arxiv.org to be a certified sponsor for the nonlinear science category.  On May 8th, he asked one such person, Dr. Yaroslav Kartashov of Estonia, to consider the paper for posting.  Dr. Kartashov read through the paper and agreed to endorse it for posting.

From: Starburstfound@aol.com
To: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2008 5:58 PM
Subject: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading

Dear Dr. Kartashov

I understand that you are able to endorse papers for submission to arxiv.org in the nonlinear science section. I would like to ask whether you could endorse my paper entitled "The Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern". The paper has already been accepted for publication in a well known systems journal and is due to be published shortly. Please let me know if you have time to look at it and I will email you a copy. An abstract of the paper is given below.

Sincerely,

Paul LaViolette

Subj: Re: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 5:06:57 PM
From: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

Dear Dr. LaViolette,
Sure, I can take a look on your paper.
Sincerely,
Yaroslav V. Kartashov

 

Subj: You now can submit to nlin.PS
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:13:38 PM
From: www-admin@arxiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

You've just been endorsed to submit papers to the arXiv subject class
nlin.PS (Pattern Formation and Solitons). Visit http://arxiv.org/submit/ to submit papers.
Endorsement is a necessary but not a sufficient condition to have papers accepted
in arXiv; arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission...

Subj: Re: endorsement sought for arxiv.org uploading
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 7:14:16 PM
From: Yaroslav.Kartashov@icfo.es
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

done

 3)

  May, 8, 2008, an attempt is made to submit the paper to arxiv.org:  

      On Thursday evening, May 8, 2008 Dr. LaViolette attempted to upload his paper to the nonlinear sciences section of the Cornell archive preprint server.  He had carefully followed the instructions for uploading and had received an automated response giving him a paper ID of 0805.1216 and password se838.  The auto responder said that his submitted paper and abstract would appear in the next mailing, i.e. would be posted later that evening:

Subj: RE: hput nucleonpaper.pdf -> 0805.1216.pdf (0805.1216, 253kb)
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 9:28:55 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

To verify abstract and pdf, use http://arXiv.org/abs/0805.1216
Article-id: 0805.1216, Article password: se838 (access still password restricted)
Abstract will appear in mailing scheduled to begin at 20:00 Thursday
US Eastern time (i.e., Fri 9 May 08 00:00:00 GMT).

Your title and abstract will appear in the next mailing exactly as below

 4)

 May 8, 2008, LaViolette's paper is judged inappropriate and is removed from the archive posting:

      Two hours after uploading his paper LaViolette receives a second reply from the archive stating that his paper was removed upon notice from the archive moderators who determined it to be "inappropriate" for the archive. This seemed strange to him considering that his paper had been accepted for publication.  The archive had allowed other scientists to post papers on Turing patterns and Brusselator-like models.  So why should he be prevented from posting?  The reply he received is reproduced below;

Subj: 0805.1216 removed
Date: Thursday, May 8, 2008 11:45:49 PM
From: www-admin@arxiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

Your submission has been removed upon a notice from our moderators, who
determined it inappropriate for arXiv. Please send to a conventional
journal instead for the requisite feedback.

If you disagree with this determination, please do not resubmit the
submission to any archive until you first explain the reason to
moderation@arxiv.org and receive a positive response.

Please direct all questions and concerns regarding moderation to the
moderation@arxiv.org address. More information about our moderation
policies can be found at:

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

--
arXiv admin

 5)

 May 9, 2008, LaViolette demands an explanation of why the archive moderators did not allow his paper to be posted:    

      Confused about what happened, LaViolette sends an email to the archive moderator asking for an explanation as to why they removed his paper. He points out that it had already been accepted for publication in a reputable systems science journal:

Subj: question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, May 9, 2008 9:56:10 AM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org

Dear arXiv-moderation,

Could you please explain your reasons for removing paper No. 0805.1216 from being posted on the archive. Its subject deals both with physics (the electric charge distribution within the nucleon) and with nonlinear reaction-diffusion systems (Turing patterns). The areas it addresses seem quite appropriate for the archive.
The paper has been accepted by the International Journal of General Systems, a reputable professional journal and one of the oldest journals in the systems theory field. The paper is due to be published shortly. Yet your email said "Please send to a conventional journal instead for the requisite feedback." Systems scientists generally consider IJGS to be a conventional journal in the systems field. If it is appropriate for publication in IJGS, why is it not appropriate for posting on arxiv.org?

Perhaps the person who made the decision to remove the paper should respond to this email.

Paul LaViolette

 6)

 May 28, 2008, the moderator finally responds:

      Almost three weeks later he receives a response from the archive.  Ignoring his previous statement that the paper has already been accepted for publication, they unbelievably ask that he instead submit it to a conventional journal.  Here they imply that the International Journal of General Systems (IJGS) is not a conventional journal.  The irrelevance of the response could suggest that it was computer generated.  That is, it may have been an automated response sent out only to appellants whose names appear on arxiv's black list.

Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 9:46:33 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

Dear Paul LaViolette,

The moderators determined that your submission was in need of
significant review and revision before it would be considered
publishable by a conventional journal in the field to which you have
submitted.

Please submit to a conventional journal in the appropriate field to
receive the requisite feedback, or contact a local expert in the field.
For more information about our moderation policies, please see:

http://arxiv.org/help/moderation

--
arXiv moderation

7)

 May 29, 2008, LaViolette requests a better explanation:

      LaViolette challenges the moderator and requests a more meaningful explanation.  He again points out that his paper was accepted by one of the oldest and most prestigious journals in the systems field.  He includes a copy of his letter of acceptance.

Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, May 29, 2008 8:46:27 AM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org

Dear arXiv-moderation,

I would like a descent reply to my question, not a computer generated one. Obviously from my email you understand that my paper has already been accepted by a reputable journal, one of the oldest and most prestigious journals in its field. Below I have copied the letter of acceptance.
So your reply that I submit to a conventional journal for paper review does not make sense. It has already been reviewed by three referees. I was told that most had expertise in physics.

Paul LaViolette

------------------------
Subj: Re: IJGS Paper #1518
Date: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 1:53:12 PM
From: gensyst@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com

I am very happy to inform you that your paper, "The
Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of
the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave
Pattern," has been fully accepted for publication in
the International Journal of General Systems.

Upon receipt of the disk containing the items listed
below, your paper will be sent to the publisher for
production.

- Final version in MS Word format
- Final version in PDF format
- Your brief biography
- Your photograph
- Copyright Release Form

You can send the disk directly to me at:
Ms. Ellen Tilden
Electrical and Computer Engineering Department
Binghamton University
PO Box 6000
Binghamton, New York 13902-6000


 8)

May 30, 2008: The arxiv moderator argues the inappropriateness of both the journal and of LaViolette's paper. 

      The arxiv moderator responds the next day saying that the arxiv does not have a systems theory category for paper posting and neither do they consider LaViolette's paper suitable for the physics category.  The moderator then advises that even though the paper was already accepted for publication in IJGS that LaViolette cancel its publication and instead submit the paper to a conventional physics journal:

Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, May 30, 2008 5:28:10 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

Dear Paul LaViolette,

arXiv does not contain a subject classification for Systems Theory, and
the moderators maintain that your submission is not appropriate for our
Physics subject classifications. If you believe that this work would be
of interest to physicists, you must obtain feedback from reviewers of a
conventional physics journal or from a local expert in the field.
(Please note that arXiv moderators are not referees and cannot provide
substantive feedback on submissions.)

--
arXiv moderation

 9)

 June 6, 2008: LaViolette continues his rebuttal:  

      LaViolette rebuts the moderator's claim that the subject of his paper is inappropriate for the nonlinear systems category.  He points out that the International Journal of General Systems publishes on topics identical to those normally discussed in the nonlinear systems arxiv category.  He also shows that words such as "Brusselator," "Turing," or "reaction system," which appear frequently in his paper, also occur commonly in papers posted in the nonlinear sciences category.  He writes:

Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 6, 2008 8:26:03 PM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org

Dear arXiv-moderation,

The journal publishes topics that relate to the topics posted in your nonlinear sciences section. To give a clearer idea what the journal is about, here is a quote from their website:
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/03081079.asp

"The term "general system" in the name of the journal is intended to indicate this aim - the orientation to systems ideas that have a general applicability. Some typical subject areas covered by the journal include: systems modeling, simulation and design; systems complexity and simplification methods; crossdisciplinary problem solving; and theoretical as well as experimental knowledge regarding various categories of systems, such as hierarchical, cellular, adaptive, self-organizing, learning, autopoietic, self-producing, intelligent, etc. The journal also contains a special area section on Intelligent Systems Design."

The above topics are normally discussed in the nonlinear sciences category. In your search engine for that category I put the word "Brusselator" and got 16 hits, "Turing" and got 55 hits, "reaction system" and got 7 hits. These are keywords that relate to topics in my paper. So I think the paper's subject is quite appropriate to this category. Moreover the paper was felt appropriate by its sponsor. So by all reasonable consideration, it should be allowed to be posted.

Paul LaViolette

 10)

 June 20, 2008: The moderators change the reason for their objection:  

      The arxiv moderators respond two weeks later, claiming that LaViolette's paper in its current state is not appropriate for the arXiv because it challenges fundamental theories of physics.  Here they apparently refer to the claim made at the end of the paper's abstract stating that the paper shows the wave packet model to be fundamentally flawed which implies that quantum mechanics does not realistically represent the microphysical world.  They then state that the paper should pass review by physicists before it be allowed to be posted in the archive.

Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 3:29:35 PM
From: moderation@arxiv.org
To: Starburstfound@aol.com

Dear Paul LaViolette,

The moderators maintain that it is not appropriate for arXiv in its
current state. It challenges fundamental theories within the field of
physics and should be reviewed and refereed by physics experts for the
requisite feedback.

--
arXiv moderation

11)

 June 20, 2008  LaViolette again rebuts the moderators:

      LaViolette corrects the moderators, stating that the paper had been reviewed by at least two physicists.  He invites them to contact the journal's editor to eliminate any doubt about this.

Subj: Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:19:20 PM
From: Starburstfound
To: moderation@arxiv.org, Starburstfound

Dear arXiv-moderation,
The paper was sent to three referees. From what I understand, at least two of these were physicists. It had quite good reviews. The paper underwent revision to take into accounts the matters that the referees brought up.

IJGS is a very reputable journal and would not want to publish something that did not meet stringent standards concerning subjects the paper discussed in the area of nuclear field theory. Perhaps you would like to take the matter up with the editor of the journal.

Paul LaViolette

      LaViolette receives no response from the moderators, only an automated computer response that they have received his question:

Subj: RE: Re: moderation Re: moderation Re: moderation question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Friday, June 20, 2008 7:19:37 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: starburstfound@aol.com

Your moderation query has been received and will be given due consideration.
Pending moderation queries are reviewed weekly.
Further action is neither necessary nor helpful to speed up the process.
(In particular, e-mail to any other addresses about moderation issues
will be left unattended.)

Thank you for your patience.

12)

Mid June, 2008:  Entering the Twilight Zone -- Paul Ginsparg, head administrator of arxiv.org emails a member of the IJGS editorial board expressing his intense disapproval of LaViolette's paper and making defamatory accusations about LaViolette himself.  

      On July 3, 2008 Dr. LaViolette writes to Professor Klir, editor of the International Journal of General Systems (IJGS), telling him the story of how the physics internet archive administered by Cornell University was preventing him from posting a preprint of his forthcoming paper.  Six days later Dr. Klir notifies LaViolette that in connection with the arxiv.org censorship that LaViolette had previously described to him, he had received an email concerning the forthcoming publication of LaViolette's paper in IJGS.  More specifically, he states that a member of the IJGS editorial board (who wished to remain unnamed) had forwarded to him an email he had received from "an extremely well respected physicist, who was "a top professor in a major university" and which concerned the upcoming publication in the IJGS of LaViolette's paper.  The board member mentioned that the inquirer had stated that the "managers of the arxiv.org preprint service" were concerned that "this paper is not scientific."  
 
     Obviously, this "extremely well respected physicist/top professor" associated with the arxiv.org management was none other than Paul Ginsparg himself, professor of physics at Cornell University.  Other than the editorial office of IJGS, the only others that knew that LaViolette had submitted his paper to this journal were the moderators of arxiv.org at Cornell.  So the source of this email is no mystery.
 
     The email that Dr. Klir received from his board member is reproduced below.  The excerpt from Ginsparg's email to the board member is in bold and set off by brackets << ... >>:

From the IJGS board member to Professor Klir and his assistant Ellen:

George and Ellen: I have had an inquiry from an extremely well respected
physicist (a top professor in a major university) concerning the
upcoming publication in the IJGS of "The Electric Charge and
Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic
Turing Wave Pattern", by Paul La Violette, also available at
http://www.etheric.com/Downloads/nucleon.html. There is apparently
concern not just on the part of this scientist, but the managers of the
arxiv.org preprint service (note: not even a peer-reviewed venue, but
rather just a posting service with minimal screening) that this paper is
not scientific. To quote my inquirer precisely:

<< The abstract of the current article clearly concludes
"... The wave packet model is shown to be fundamentally flawed implying
that quantum mechanics does not realistically represent the microphysical
world. This new conception points to the possible existence of orbital
energy states below the Balmer ground state whose transitions may be
tapped as a new source of energy."
i.e., not only that quantum mechanics is wrong, but he also has a
source of infinite energy from the Hydrogen ground state. These are
thoroughly crackpot claims that the author has [been] making for many years
(see multiple threads from Bob Park's "What's new" about La Violette,
and for obvious reasons is unable to publish in any credible physics
journal. >>

While I have looked through the paper, I have not read it through
thoroughly. Nor would I be qualified to review it if I had. Still, it is
evident that La Violette's physics is based on an extrapolation of
macro-physical self-organizational dynamical systems processes (e.g.
dissipative structures) down to the quantum level, a very difficult
perspective to justify within the most rigorous and extensive
developments.

After looking into La Violette's general career myself at some depth, it
is evident that he is a deliberately provocative figure soundly outside
the mainstream of the scientific community, indulging as much in an
almost mystical, depth-psychological discourse about myth interpretation
as attempts at science. And while even his apparent identity as an
antigravity and free energy enthusiast is not *necessarily* an
indictment in and of itself, it is worth noting that his references in
the paper to "subquantum kinetics", including his claims of validation
for prior predictions, are self-citations, including multiple
vanity-press book publications (Starlane Publications).

You know me as a dedicated systems scientist, the last to suggest that
contrarian or synthetic thinking is not welcome in science; nor would I
assert that the IJGS should not provide a venue for such approaches in
any branch of science.
But as I know you appreciate, our community's laudable openness to
divergent views carries a concomitant burden to uphold the highest
scientific standards. In that light, may I please inquire if this paper
received a complete and thorough review from fully qualified physicists?
If so, did they express any of these concerns?

Thanks for your consideration.


Correction: Starlane Publications is not a "vanity press."  Dr. LaViolette's paper references only one book published by Starlane, namely the first and second editions of Subquantum Kinetics.


      We see from reading the email he had sent to the board member that Ginsparg had no intention of writing to the board member to inquire whether LaViolette's paper had been reviewed by physicists.  Rather his main purpose appears to have been to make derogatory comments about Dr. LaViolette and his paper with the aim of embarrassing the journal into rejecting the paper.
 
     This is not the first time that influential physicists have gotten a journal to reject a paper after it had already been approved for publication.  For this reason scientists proposing new findings that might be viewed by some as being controversial normally keep the name of the journal they are submitting to confidential.   So, in revealing to the archive moderator the name of the journal that had accepted his paper and suggesting to them that they could contact the journal editor to ensure that the paper had been previously reviewed by physicist referees, LaViolette was trusting that the moderator would not misuse this information.  He was apparently wrong to do so since Ginsparg's statements indicate an intended intervention aimed at preventing the paper from coming out in print.
 
     Ginsparg begins by indicating intense displeasure with LaViolette for suggesting that "quantum mechanics is wrong".  Quantum mechanics forms one of the fundamental underpinnings of contemporary physics.  So, if there was some problem with it, wouldn't physicists want to know what this flaw was, or would they prefer that such an unthinkable iconoclastic idea be censored?  We see that Ginsparg and Cornell's physics preprint archive side are of the latter opinion, making them reminiscent of the Church in Galileo's times.
 
     Actually, LaViolette does not specifically say that quantum mechanics is wrong,  Indeed, LaViolette acknowledges the quantum mechanics leads to numerically correct answers about particle scattering phenomena.  His paper instead states that the Schroedinger wave packet model is flawed, and that, as a result, "quantum mechanics does not realistically represent the microphysical world."  That is, recent particle scattering experiments instead support the subquantum kinetics Turing wave model with its far smaller wavelength which is fixed and equal to the particle's Compton wavelength.  This turing wave model also yields numerically correct answers relating to particle scattering phenomena, but without the paradoxes and conundrums that plague quantum mechanics.  One specific difference is that the Schroedinger wave packet of quantum mechanics does not allow the existence of fractional quantum number orbits in the hydrogen atom whereas the subquantum kinetics Turing wave model does allow their existence.  Consequently, subquantum kinetics is able to explain why the new (non cold fusion) technologies of Eccles and Mills are able to produce heat from plain water by inducing orbital electron transitions to fractional quantum number orbits, while quantum mechanics fails miserably to explain the functioning of these new technologies.  With so much emphasis being placed on alternative energy technology, one would expect that such new theories would be welcome, not suppressed because they don't agree with the standard view.
 
     Ginsparg's second point is plainly untrue.  Nowhere in his paper does LaViolette suggest that infinite amounts of energy may be extracted from transitions into fraction quantum number orbits in hydrogen.  Nor does he suggest the existence of an infinite regress of sub-Bohr-ground-state energy levels.  At most eleven fractional quantum number orbits would exist below the n = 1 Bohr orbit.  The number is limited by the electron's Turing wave whose Compton wavelength must fit within the orbit.  So Ginsparg's accusation is totally false.  
 
     Ginsparg then speaks quite rudely, stating that LaViolette makes "crackpot claims".  As proof of this, he cites articles by Robert Park, a former American Physical Society Washington lobbyist who retired in 2006 and who writes an internet news column called What's New .  Up until his retirement his column was published on the APS website (aps.org) but it now appears on his personal website (bobpark.org).  Ginsparg refers the board member to Park's paragraph long sarcastic postings to render a sober judgment of the validity of a scientist's work or of his intellectual acumen. At this point Ginsparg becomes almost laughable, for much of the critical news pieces that Park has posted in his news column have been replete with fabrication.  One example, is Park's claim in 1999 that patent examiner Tom Valone recruited LaViolette to work in the U.S. Patent Office as part of a conspiracy to induct "free energy enthusiasts"to become patent examiners.  This claim is totally ridiculous and borders on 50's McCarthyist paranoia.  Park also circulated emails stating that LaViolette claimed that the B-2 bomber "uses anti-gravity technology reverse engineered from a crashed flying saucer."       This also is false.  This statement was reportedly made by Marion Williams, a former CIA intelligence officer, who confided to a relative just prior to his own death.  Although LaViolette cited Marion's statement in an article he wrote on the B-2, he himself did not accept Marion's claim of alien vehicle reverse engineering and anyone who had read LaViolette's paper sufficiently carefully would have realized as much.  Also another of Park's postings claimed that LaViolette's religion was cold fusion.  This is another fabrication that is frankly absurd. Does anyone seriously believe that LaViolette prays to some kind of cold fusion god, just because Park wrote this in one of his humorous postings?  Perhaps Ginsparg was gullible to believe this.
 
     Park targeted LaViolette in his 1999 news column postings apparently because LaViolette was supporting an alternate energy conference to be held at the State Department auditorium in D.C.  One of the many papers to be presented at this "Future Energy Conference" was to be on the subject of cold fusion, which infuriated Park since cold fusion was a topic he had long chastised as being in his words "pseudoscience." LaViolette had placed a link on his personal website directed to the conference website and this had apparently incensed Park.  For Park and some of his close friends subsequently orchestrated a massive email campaign to embarrass the Patent Office into firing LaViolette and the conference organizer Tom Valone from their jobs as patent examiners.  From a historical perspective, however, it seems that Park chose the losing side.  Although cold fusion was at that time in disrepute among the mainstream physics community, a few years later the U.S. Navy published a report detailing their 13 year study of the phenomenon and concluding that there was something to it.  Then in 2008, a physicist at Osaka University in Japan demonstrated that the phenomenon could be repeatedly reproduced, and most recently one Navy researcher made national news with his demonstration of neutron production, proof that nuclear transmutation was taking place at low temperatures. Park also had repeatedly run critical What's New "threads" attacking Randall Mills for claiming that he had produced energy from water by inducing sub-Bohr orbit electron transitions. Park repeatedly mislabeled this phenomenon as cold fusion, which it is not.  This is the same phenomenon that LaViolette's paper now sheds light on.  As of April 2009, Mill's company Blacklight Power has twenty 50 kilowatt generators in the field testing stage and hopes soon to be making the technology available in the marketplace.  Pseudoscience?  
 
     One thing that Ginsparg and Park appear to have in common is that both are opposed to any kind of alternate energy technology that might ultimately help humanity, particularly if such new technology is not anticipated by the heavily funded contemporary physics paradigm.  Should Park's opinion of LaViolette be used as grounds to prevent LaViolette's scientific papers from being published in journals or their preprints posted on arxiv.org?  In view of the above, most would say no.
 
     Ginsparg also demeans LaViolette to the journal editorial board by saying that LaViolette has been unable to publish in any credible physics journal. In fact, in 1986 LaViolette published a landmark cosmology paper in the well respected Astrophysical Journal.  He has also published in other well known journals such as Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Earth, Moon, and Planets, and Planetary and Space Science.  It is true that there are some conventional physics journals that would not wish to publish some of LaViolette's papers because they and their referees choose not to publish anything that challenges the current physics paradigm.  However, to view such self-involved physics journals as "credible" and all other journals as rubbish is to hold a rather arrogant view of science to say the least.  Ginsparg's email to the IJGS editorial board, though, is illuminating for it reveals the kind of thinking underlying arxiv.org's decision to blacklist LaViolette and other scientists from posting to the preprint archive.
 
     The above incident calls to mind Ginsparg's vehement reaction in 2000 against another physicist he was blacklisting, namely Carlos Castro. In his article entitled "My Struggle with Ginsparg (arXiv.org) and the Road to Cyberia". Castro recounts that Ginsparg wrote to his manager at Los Alamos National Laboratories that "Carlos Castro is an obvious nut and all his papers are abject nonsense" and threatened to ban Clark Atlanta University from posting to arxiv.org if they continued to voice their support for Castro.


13)


June 21, 2008: Professor Klir responds.

      Shortly afterward, professor Klir, editor of IJGS, responds to the IGJS board member's email, stating his support for the scientific integrity of LaViolette's paper submission.  He points out that the paper was reviewed by three physicists and revised to accommodate any concerns they had.

> > Hi xxx,
> >
> > Thank you very much for your message regarding the paper by
> > Paul La Violette. I appreciate it and I would equally
> > appreciate similar information about other papers in the
> > future. As far as the paper by La Violette is concerned, I
> > was well aware that his work is not accepted by the
> > mainstream physics community. However, this is not a
> > sufficient reason for me to reject a paper. I could have
> > rejected the paper on the basis that the subject is outside
> > the aims and scope of the journal. I have not done that
> > because, after reading the paper, I found that La Violette
> > uses sound systems thinking throughout the whole paper. I
> > also did not find in the paper any indicator that the paper
> > is not scientific, as claimed by the scientist who contacted
> > you, but it is rather based on assumptions that are not
> > compatible with the current mainstream physics. Since I am
> > not a physicist, I asked four physicists to review the paper
> > and I received reviews by three of them. They all made
> > various comments and suggestions, and asked some questions,
> > but they all recommended that the paper be published provided
> > that it is revised according to their critical comments. They
> > all also clearly indicated that the paper will not be
> > favorably accepted by most physicists because it clashes with
> > the current paradigm in physics. I sent the three reviews to
> > La Violette, together with my own review, and asked him to
> > respond to all these reviews. He substantially revised the
> > paper and explained in detail how he actually revised it.
> > After that, I accepted the paper and sent it to production.
> >
> > Although your message arrived after the paper was already in
> > production, I do not think that the information you mention
> > in the message would change my publication decision in this
> > case. However, similar information might be very important in
> > other cases in the future.
> > Therefore, I will always greatly appreciate such information
> > in the future.
> >
> > With best regards and best wishes in your new job,
> >
> > George

About topics relevant to being published in the IJGS:  Systems science, by definition, is highly interdisciplinary.  Systems scientists have discussed the application of systems concepts to a wide variety of disciplines: chemical kinetics, nonequilibrium thermodynamics, information theory, cybernetics, physics, biology, sociology, business administration, psychology, psychotherapy, education, and the list goes on.  In the case of a discipline such as microphysics that has historically evolved its paradigm in relative isolation from the influence of systems thinking those physicists advocating continuance of the traditional physics paradigm will necessarily regard the new paradigm as an intruder and vehemently oppose the intruding concepts (and Ginsparg has very clearly demonstrated this allergic reaction).  Such conservative element reactions are understandable, but they do not constitute grounds for deeming the application of systems concepts to physics as being unscientific.  



14)



~June 22, 2008: The IJGS board member agrees with Klir's decision and suggests opening a dialog.

      The IJGS board member agrees with Professor Klir's decision and says he would like to pass Klir's response on to the "inquirer".  Further, he suggests that Dr. Klir or the journal open a dialog with the inquirer (i.e. Paul Ginsparg) to discuss what "scientific" really means.  He notes that this is a topic that is of great interest to the Systems community and journal readership.

> George: Thanks for your consideration, that was exactly the answer I
> would have hoped and expected to have received.
>
> I guess my question at this point is whether you, or the journal, would
> be interested in opening up a dialog with my inquirer. As you may
> appreciate, the style of modern scientific discourse, enhanced by the
> available information technology, is more and more to encourage such
> exchanges, and open electronic journals are increasingly featuring such
> forums. I would be fascinated to see what specific critical comments
> would be available, and how they would interact with the peer reviewed
> received by you.
>
> Obviously, the discussion would hinge around what "scientific" really
> means, something we are always interested in having more clarity on, and
> it seems to me of great specific interest to the Systems community and
> to the readers of the IJGS in particular.
>
> Specifically, with your permission, may I pass on your comments to my
> inquirer? I will similarly ask him if he would like to be identified to
> you before proceeding.
>
> Thanks for your consideration.
xxx



15)



June 30, 2009:  Professor Klir suggests that Ginsparg instead write a Letter to the Editor stating his opinion about LaViolette's paper.

      After a one week delay, Professor Klir responds to the board member indicating that he lacks the time to engage in such a dialog and also that his own background in physics, while broad and well read, is insufficient in depth to engage in a debate over issues concerning contemporary physics.  He suggests that the board member instead invite the inquirer (Ginsparg) to write a Letter to the Editor stating his opinion about LaViolette's paper so that LaViolette could respond in print with another Letter to the Editor.  As we shall see, Ginsparg did not take up the challenge.


    Hi xxx:

I am sorry I am responding to your e-mail message with almost one week
delay. For various reasons, I am currently very busy (in spite of my
starting retirement), and it will be more or less the same until the end of
September. That explains why I have not responded earlier.

As far as the prospective dialog that you suggest is concerned, this is a
good idea, but I do not consider myself the right person to participate.
Although I can read and understand, by and large, literature in physics, I
do not have enough expertise to debate current issues involving physics.
Moreover, as I already mentioned, I am right now highly over committed and
must be careful not to make the situation even worse. You may of course
share my e-mail message with your inquirer, but for releasing the reviews
of the paper by La Violette, I would have to get permissions from the
reviewers. Perhaps you might suggest to your inquirer to write a short
Letter to the Editor (to me) about his opinion of La Violette's paper after
it is published and I will give a chance to La Violette to respond to it by
another Letter to the Editor. I will then publish both letters in the same
issue of the journal. That may lead to a more extensive debate somewhere
outside the journal (IJGS is not the right place for such a debate). Let me
know what do you think about this idea.

With my best regards,

George

      On July 9th, Dr. Klir shares the above email correspondence with Paul LaViolette.  Names and email addresses were omitted for privacy.

Subj: Re: Paper by Paul La Violette
Date: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 3:12:52 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: gravitics1@aol.com

Dear Paul,

This is my e-mail correspondence with the member of our Editorial Board
who sent me the inquiry about your paper (see my e-mail message sent to
you a few minutes ago). As usually, you should read this e-mail
exchange from the back, starting with my response to his "inquiry",
followed by his response, and finally my second response. As you can see
from my final response, I would be willing to publish a short Letter to
the Editor from the physicist who inquired about your paper (if he would
like to write one), and would give you a chance to respond to him in
another Letter to the Editor. However, I would not like to involve the
journal in a more extensive debate; this should be done, if desirable,
in a more suitable journal. Personally, I do not want to participate in
any prospective debate on this issue since I am not a physicist and I am
currently busy with many other commitments. Nevertheless, I hope that
the information forwarded to you will be of interest to you.

With best regards,

George Klir


16)


July 13, 2008:  Paul LaViolette writes to Dr. Klir responding to Ginsparg's accusations and to the comments of the IJGS board member.

Subj: Re: Paper by Paul La Violette
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2008 5:39:11 PM
From: gravitics1@aol.com
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu

Dr. George Klir
Editor, International Journal of General Systems
SUNY, Binghamton
Binghamton, New York

Dear Dr. Klir,

Thank you very much for looking into this matter regarding the arxiv.org blocking of my preprint posting...

My initial request to you was mainly to ask you if it was possible to inform the arxiv moderator about the IJGS review process concerning my paper... However... your board member and his colleague whom he quotes have seemed to turn this into a question about the integrity of my character, the credibility of my scientific work, and the quality of my paper, which has been reviewed and approved by three physicists (as you say). So, excuse the length of my response, but I feel it is necessary to respond in detail to these challenges and accusations. The diatribe below is not directed to you George, especially in view of the very nice response you wrote back to your board member defending the integrity of my work. Please feel free to pass it on to your board member and his professor friend.

Regarding the comment of the physicist whom your board member quoted, I would like to set the record straight.
1) Nowhere in my paper do I propose that my model claims that infinite amounts of energy can be obtained from the hydrogen ground state or from transitions from that state. Only one place in my paper do I use the word "infinite" and that is in regard to the view which comes out of classical field theory from conventional physics which regards the electric potential field in the nucleon as rising to a central singularity. This singularity model leads to a problem that has been often discussed by physicists which has been termed the "infinite energy absurdity".

In an overly rapid reading of the discussion in section 7 of my paper, one could misconstrue that I was implying an infinite regress of fractional quantum states. But I never intended to convey such to the reader. In fact, any fractional quantum number leading to an orbital circumference smaller than the electron's Compton wavelength would not be allowed, i.e., anything smaller than the n = 1/11 quantum number. The n = 1/11 circumference would have a length equal to 2.75 X 10^-12 meters whereas the Turing wave which I propose characterizes the electron's core electric field would have a wavelength slightly smaller, equal to 2.43 X 10^-12 meters -- the electron's Compton wavelength. It seems reasonable that any orbital circumference smaller than the electron's Compton wavelength would be ruled out.

Furthermore the paper's suggestion that there exist fractional quantum number energy states below the Bohr orbit is based on observation, citing the work of several researchers. In my paper I point out that the findings of these researchers, which quantum mechanics leaves unexplained, may be understood in the context of the subquantum kinetics Turing wave model of subatomic particles. Normally, electrons do not have the ability to jump down to these subground energy states since they are unable to spontaneously radiate away the energy difference involved in making this orbital transition. As I explained in the paper, it is only possible if certain catalysts are present in the immediate vicinity of the hydrogen atoms. Such catalysts allow energy of a specific quantized amount to be transferred collisionally from the hydrogen atom to the catalyst, the catalysts being so to speak able to accept energy specifically from a particular orbital transition, say from the n = 1 to the n = 1/2 orbit. If another catalyst were added that allowed the electron to give up energy equal to a jump from the n = 1 to the n = 1/3 orbit, then such transitions could also take place. The physicist's fear that I might be proposing rampant orbital transitions radiating infinite amounts of energy are entirely misplaced. It seems he is misreading my paper and thereby creating a paper tiger.

2) Furthermore I find rather offensive this physicist's accusation that I make crackpot claims and have been making them for years. I consider this terminology an attack on my character. I have no attachments to the ideas I propose and always consider them with a critical eye. That is, I critique my work carefully. I would not advance any notion that would conflict with observational evidence. I challenge this person to state in public, with his name and affiliation attached, anything I have written that is on its face invalid when considered against observational data. Unless he states more specifically which idea he says I have been promoting that is "crackpot", I am not sure how I can respond here. If he is referring to my contention that the energy conservation law is routinely violated by Nature, I agree that I stated such in my original set of papers on SQK published in the 1985 special issue of IJGS. But there I was proposing very small violations, observable only cosmologically. That is, subquantum kinetics (SQK) proposes that the physical universe functions as an open system that the fields forming matter and energy quanta are concentration inhomogeneities of subquantum reactants engaged in nonequilibrium reaction-diffusion processes. Hence just as entropy can spontaneously decrease in an open system, so too under some circumstances matter can spontaneously emerge and quanta can spontaneously increase in energy over time. I feel I have dealt with this subject in a rigorous fashion in previous publications. In fact, the energy conservation violations that follow from SQK led to predictions that I had published and that were subsequently verified by others (see the list of predictions I discuss in my book and that are posted on the starburstfound.org website). So I really fail to understand what troubles this professor. If he genuflects to the First Law of Thermodynamics and regards any discussion of such violations as sacrosanct, I think there is no way I or anyone else can reason with him.

3) I am surprised that this professor cites Robert Park as a credible authority and that he is gullible enough to actually believe what Park wrote about me. Park is a nut and it is a sad commentary on the American Physical Society that they allow him to post his What's New column on their website. Did this professor actually provide the IJGS editorial board with links to Park's libelous statements about me? Here I refer to derogatory comments that Park wrote about me in 1998 through 2000. Much of what he writes in his column is for entertaining the physicist masses and to accomplish this he fills his comments with fabrication and twisted lies. At least this is true concerning what he has written about me. For example, Park said that I was supposed to be part of some covert plan to infiltrate the U.S. Patent Office and bring in treacherous ideas about "free energy"; i.e., overunity energy production. Not so, I applied for the job because I heard the PTO was hiring. It had nothing to do with any conspiracy plan. Park also maintains that Tom Valone hired me. Wrong again. I was recruited by a female supervisor. Only supervisors can hire. Valone was not a supervisor. He also writes that I claim that the B-2 bomber uses anti-gravity technology, reverse engineered from a crashed flying saucer. I did not state that; that quote originated from Marion Williams a former CIA officer who had worked at the Area 51 test site in Nevada. I have denied in print that there is any connection to reverse engineering alien technology. So, again Park is wrong. Also Park's claim that cold fusion is my religion is another fabrication and is frankly absurd. Anyone who believes that I pray to some kind of cold fusion god is in serious need of therapy.
I suppose I could have sued Park and the American Physical Society for personal defamation, but I figured it would likely be a waste of my time. But if, as this physicist suggests, journal editors actually use Park's statements as grounds for rejecting my papers, this would indicate that the physics journal editorial review system is in a sad state of decline. Perhaps then there might be good reason to reconsider launching a court suit against both Park and the APS.
For the past two years I have been living in Greece. The Greek Physical Society, the Greek equivalent of the American Physical Society, has treated me very differently. They have recently made me an honorary member and I hope soon to give them a presentation on SQK at one of their meetings. Perhaps this shows that there is a difference in mentality or level of sanity between the American and European cultures.

Perhaps you are curious to know why Park singled me out for attack. Park was particularly concerned about my affiliation with Tom Valone, a patent examiner, who in 1999 was planning an alternative energy conference at the State Department auditorium in DC. He was incensed that the conference was to include a presentation on cold fusion, his favorite subject of derision. Valone had posted an announcement about this conference on his Integrity Research Institute website and had emailed a copy of the announcement to me which I posted on my website as well. The fact that both Valone and I worked at the patent office as patent examiners and that we both supported a conference that was to host a paper on cold fusion apparently made Park furious and made us both targets for his attacks. While many physicists were at the time skeptical of cold fusion, three years later in 2002 the Office of Naval Research announced that they had conducted a 10 year study of cold fusion and came to the conclusion that the phenomenon was real. ONR had not announced this earlier because their study was classified. Moreover the more recent research coming out of Japan indicates that cold fusion is an easily reproducible phenomenon readily observed in the laboratory. Of course many physicists are likely still in denial since the phenomenon is not predicted by standard physics theories. They would prefer to uphold outmoded beliefs rather than open their eyes to the reality of observation.

4) The member of the IJGS editorial board member who wrote to you and whose comments you forwarded to me also surprises me. He writes that he did a google search on my name and that on this basis he seems to doubt my qualifications as a serious scientist. (This sounds like a brilliant idea for reviewing papers. Let's not read the paper a person submits but rather do a google search on the author's name and see if we agree with the various aspects of his research interests. If this is the case, it seems that science has not made much progress since the middle ages the internet being used as a tool for promoting prejudice. )

5) Your board member has the audacity to state that the references I make in my paper to subquantum kinetics are self citations and vanity press publications. There is nothing wrong with self citations. Most authors cite publications they have previously written if they are relevant to the paper they are writing. I cite papers I have published in IJGS, the Astrophysical Journal, and Physics Essays. All of these are refereed journals. Infinite Energy is the only journal I cite that is not refereed. I do cite my book Subquantum Kinetics, both the first and second edition of the book. Perhaps this is what he means by "multiple vanity-press book publications". To set the record straight, my book was not published by a "vanity press." I self published my book. Starlane Publications is a dba name (doing business as), hence a substitute name for Paul LaViolette. I do not consider myself to be vane. Most people who know me say that I am a modest and soft spoken person. (Although here I am taking the gloves off.) My intention to publish subquantum kinetics was simply to communicate my ideas to others. The endeavor was quite successful since the book went into a second edition and has been purchased by many physicists including university professors and university students. Does the board member realize that the first edition of the Subquantum Kinetics book essentially consisted of a collection of papers that were previously published in refereed journals and were gathered together along with a bit of new material to read as a book? Much of the material came from papers I had published in IJGS, the Astrophysical Journal, and Physics Essays.

6) From the tone of his comments, I get the impression that your board member must think I am some kind of coook. This board member refers to himself as a "dedicated systems scientist." I certainly did not expect such treatment from someone from within the systems science community. I thought that being editor of the book "A Systems View of Man" by von Bertalanffy I had established a name and some degree of respect from members of the systems science community. I have also published in the General Systems Yearbook and in the ISSS conference proceedings. I also am one of the few to get a Ph.D. in general system theory in the U.S. Portland State had the only systems science doctoral program and I had taken the systems theory track during the brief period when the program was offering that track of study. I think you know some of my background, but maybe your board member doesn't know much about me. Instead he relies on Google.

7) The board member says that he concludes that I am soundly outside the bounds of the scientific community. Indeed, my path of investigation involved bringing systems concepts into the domain of microphysics. The open system concept which I was introducing into field theory inevitably led to different conclusions than those of classical physics (by "classical" I mean here the collection of theories and assumptions that make up standard or conventional physics). Hence it is correct that I could be considered outside the bounds of conventional physics. But in doing so I used concepts and ideas that were quite well grounded in the systems tradition, concepts commonly discussed by people such as Bertalanffy and Prigogine. In saying that I am soundly outside the bounds of the scientific community, does this "systems scientist" mean to say that I am also outside the bounds of systems science as well? If so, that really hurts. I kind of figured I would get some support for what I was doing from members of the systems community, particularly those knowledgeable about general system theory. The open system concept is fundamental in my approach and incidentally von Bertalanffy himself firmly believed that the universe functioned as an open system. He did not state so in his writings, but his wife Maria von Bertalanffy, who I knew before her death, confided this to me when I told her about the subquantum kinetics theory I was developing. Even Prigogine had thoughts along these lines when he published a paper with a few others proposing that time is irreversible, an idea opposed to the current concept in physics that time can flow either forward or backward. Prigogine presented his ideas at a talk at the physics department in the university where he taught, the University of Texas, Austin. Many big name physicists attended. But after he finished his lecture there was complete silence. His idea was too radical for them.

8) The board member brings up that my interest in ancient myth raises suspicions. Prigogine had a strong interest in ancient myths, an avocation he admitted to his friends. Like myself, he saw that they metaphorically conveyed the concept of self-organization in open systems. But to my knowledge he never wrote up anything on this, unless it was some obscure French publication. Should we suspect Nobel Laureate Prigogine because he had an interest in mythology? Also what about Ervin Laszlo? Should we suspect him because of books he has written about the Akashic field, or about connections between the physical and the spiritual world?
I first made public my findings on ancient myth in 1995, a full decade after the date SQK was first published. This subject was discussed in my book Beyond the Big Bang which was written for a general audience. My book showed that the concept of self-organization in open systems, discovered only in the past half century or so, is metaphorically encoded in certain ancient creation myths and lores. In so doing, I was able to effectively teach even to a nonscience background public concepts that are normally encountered in the field of nonequilibrium thermodynamics, GST, and reaction kinetics. Isn't that something that might be regarded as commendable, as a landmark accomplishment in itself? Or do academics feel that systems theory should only be taught in universities to the select few? I acknowledge that Beyond the Big Bang does go further and suggest that these stories and lores were deliberately crafted by a culture that was quite scientifically advanced and that was attempting to convey to future generations a time capsule message that related a cosmological science of how the universe came into being. This is admittedly speculative. One can draw one's own conclusions on the basis of what I have presented in that book. But this is a subject entirely separate from my scientific presentation of SQK. Why should this be a bad reflection on my work in systems physics? Is imagination to be entirely outlawed?

9) I would also like to address his comment that the list of confirmations posted on my website and presented in my book Subquantum Kinetics are self citations. So far I am the sole developer of SQK. Who else would be pointing out its confirmations if not myself. It is precisely because of these confirmations that I am attracting many people's interest in the theory. Indeed it is very rare that a physics theory would have so many of its aspects later experimentally or observationally confirmed. To not list these and cite these would be negligent of me. The internet is a two way street. To my knowledge no one has posted any comment pointing out any errors in my list of confirmations. They can be easily checked by examining what was said in my original publications about SQK and comparing them to the findings which later came out which I cite. If there is any error in these postings, I would be glad to know about it. I do not intend to spread any misinformation.

I guess this about wraps up what I have to say.

All the best,

Paul LaViolette

      Also Paul forwards to Dr. Klir an essay written by his father, Fred LaViolette, about what "scientific" really means.  This was the last essay that Paul's father ever wrote.  At the time he was seriously ill with a pulmonary condition and was being cared for daily by his son and wife.  Fred passed away three months later on October 27th, 2008.

Subj: comments about science
Date: Sunday, July 13, 2008 8:20:01 PM
From: gravitics1@aol.com
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu

Dear Dr. KIir,

In regards to the comment in your second email regarding what "scientific" really means, I am sending the following comment (below) written by my father Fred LaViolette, who has masters in physics and electrical engineering and whose laudable career includes working as a nuclear engineer at the General Electric Knolls Atomic Power Lab and participant in the Manhattan Project.

Best regards,

Paul LaViolette

Essay by Fred LaViolette regarding what "scientific" really means:

 "The paper submitted by my son is published on the basis of a certain set of beliefs. All papers are published on that basis. In order to make a decision where there is a difference of opinion, both sides should define what is true. One cannot say that A is wrong because B doesn't recognize the basis for A's conclusions and vice versa. In his foundation papers published in 1985, Paul clearly stated the assumptions he uses as the basis of subquantum kinetics.
One of his assumptions is the proposed existence of an ether. Standard physics does not accept the ether. Yet Paul cites plenty of experimental evidence in his publications supporting the existence of the ether. Physicists need to get past having an emotional response to this taboo, and accept that it is a permissible assumption.
Critics of subquantum kinetics perhaps do not regard the theory's predictions as having validity because they don't understand the theory itself. Anything they don't understand, they dispel as improper science. They judge Paul's paper on the basis of what they consider as previously established fact. They consider it only from the standpoint of how it fits into their own paradigm. His paper, however is written on the basis of a new premise. He has advanced an explanation of nature that is completely different from what physicists normally believe. Without knowing anything about subquantum kinetics and the assumptions on which it is based, they are not in a position to properly judge it.
Until a basis for truth is established, there is no way to make a reasonable judgment among two radically different approaches. One good way to judge validity would be the ability for each theory to account for experimental evidence. In particular, if one clearly states predictions that follow from one's theory that are distinctly different from the standard view and these predictions are later verified, they provide a good basis for judging truth. Interpretations made after the fact should be given little weight since a posteriori reasoning can lead to a myriad of explanations. A verified priori prediction on the other hand catches ones attention because it encourages the bystander to conclude that perhaps the reasoning that led the theoretician to his prediction must have some validity, barring the possibility that he just made a lucky guess. In the case of subquantum kinetics too many predictions have been verified to pass all of them off as just lucky guesses.

Fred LaViolette

At that time that Fred wrote this subquantum kinetics had 12 of its a priori predictions subsequently verified.


17)


July 15, 2008:  Professor Klir responds to LaViolette's letter and comments about the incredible intolerance to new ideas within mainstream physics community.

      Professor Klir responds to LaViolette's July 13th letter in which LaViolette responds to comments made by Ginsparg and the member of the IJGS editorial board.  Reflecting on LaViolette's rebuttal of the statements of Ginsparg and Park, he comments that this opened his eyes to the incredible intolerance to new ideas that exists within the mainstream physics community.

Subj: Response to your two last messages
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 4:49:48 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com

Dear Paul,

Thank you very much for your extensive response to my recent correspondence with an editorial board member of the IJGS. It opened my eyes to see the incredible intolerance to new ideas within the mainstream physics community. I also appreciate that you sent me the comments regarding your paper that were written by your father. These comments, which are very well stated, express almost exactly my own position on this issue. Let me now answer your questions (also from your previous e-mail messages) and clarify some points regarding my correspondence with the editorial board member:

* Feel free to quote anything from my statement describing how I made my publication decision regarding your paper.
* As far as the reviews of your paper are concerned, I also have no objection if you quote from them. I only felt (referring to our previous correspondence) that I myself should not release them to anyone except you, the author. It is of course up to you what you want to do with them.
* Let me clarify how my correspondence with our editorial board member started. It was initiated by his e-mail message to me and Ellen Tilden that I sent you. I had not asked him to provide me with his opinion about your paper. The question is whether he was the only member of the Editorial Board contacted by the physicist. I will try to find out if other members of the Board were contacted as well.
* I am glad that you agree to respond to the prospective Letter to the Editor about your paper from the physicist. He is now challenged to express his concerns openly and under his name.
* When I received the e-mail message from the editorial board member, I took it as a good intention on his part to protect the integrity of the journal. In fact, he was quite satisfied with my explanation of how I had made my publication decision. However, after reading your response to his remarks, I read his message more carefully again and I agree with you that his remarks are not justified, even if he wanted to be overly protective of the journal, and are in fact quite offensive. May I forward to him your whole message of July 14? Although you write in the message "Please feel free to pass it on to your board member and his professor friend", I want to be sure that the "it" in this sentence refers to the whole message. Please let me know.
* I plan to include your paper in issue 37(6) of the journal, which is December 2008 issue. Make sure that you correct in page proofs the numerical error on page 19 of the paper, which you mention under P.S. in your message. When the paper is published, I will send a couple of copies of the full issue of the journal, but I need to know to which address should I send them.

Looking forward to hearing from you, I am my best regards,

George Klir


18)


July 15, 2008:  Dr. LaViolette responds to Dr. Klir's email and discusses Ginsparg's desperate attempts to get the journal to retract his paper.

Subj: Re: Response to your two last messages
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2008 11:38:25 PM
From: Gravitics1
To: xxxx@binghamton.edu, Gravitics1

Dear Dr. Klir,

Thank you for your letter and support. Yes, you may forward the whole of my message of July 14th to your board member. Thank you for letting me know of the publication date...

Also thank you for allowing me to quote you to arxiv moderation regarding the fact that my paper had been satisfactorily reviewed by physicists. And, thank you for clarifying the connection of how the physicist came to contact your board member. It is clear that the so called "top professor in a major university" that contacted your board member is someone in the physics department at Cornell University associated with arxiv.org. My best guess is that it was Paul Ginsparg. I had kept confidential which journal was to publish my paper and had told only the arxiv moderator (an anonymous person who hides behind arxiv's moderator mask somewhat like the Wizard of Oz). I copy below my correspondence with arxiv.org moderation. On May 9th I had informed the moderator that the paper had been accepted in IJGS. So they were the only ones other than yourself and the paper referees who knew of this. Also on June 20th I had invited the moderator to contact yourself to inquire whether the paper had been reviewed by physicists (see correspondence below). But instead he contacted your board member. Why he contacted this person and not yourself, I don't know. Possibly because it was someone he knew.

This throws a new light on the arxiv.org management. If they were acting properly as gentile unbiased scientists they should have contacted you in a polite manner to ask whether the paper had been reviewed by a physicist and explained the circumstances. Instead this individual attacks the paper like a mad dog and casts aspersions about my credibility as a scientist. I cannot say whether his behavior was done in a calculated manner to embarrass IJGS into withdrawing publication of my paper or due to his emotions just getting the better of him and causing him to resemble the boss of Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther.

Anyway it is revealing that they should bring up Bob Park's news column postings as being among the reasons for not posting my paper on the archive. It appears this is the underlying reason why they have singled me out and blacklisted me for exclusion from the archive since year 2000. Even telephone calls by Nobel Laureate Hans Bethe, which Park rudely let go unanswered, were unable to free me from my blacklisted status. (Bethe had endorsed the posting of one of my earlier papers which pointed out how the maser signal test I had proposed in my 1985 IJGS publication had been carried out by JPL and that their results on observations of the Pioneer spacecraft maser signal verified the prediction I had made. The blueshifting phenomenon they observed is today known as the Pioneer Effect. Arxiv.org relented and finally posted this paper only after I had contacted the National Science Foundation physics division and complained that the arxiv.org program which NSF was then funding was discriminating against myself and a few other individuals by blacklisting us from the arxiv. NSF was about to begin an investigation into the matter, but upon being sued by another physicist who was being blocked from the arxiv, they stopped the investigation. Direct NSF funding to the arxiv was subsequently cut, but money still continued to flow to Cornell's arxiv operation through related programs (hence funding went underground). Ginsparg set up an elaborate review process and after I jumped these hurdles by getting my paper endorsed by a registered endorser, it was finally allowed to be posted.

But it is interesting that this arxiv administrator would reveal that he regards Park's comments as factual and a reasonable basis to consider my work unscientific, when in fact most of what Park has said about me was entirely fabricated. Admitting this does not put the arxiv administration in a very good light and in fact leaves them looking a bit like clowns. How the president of Cornell can tolerate this behavior I don't know. Maybe he has no idea what goes on.

Below is my correspondence with arxiv moderation.

Best regards,

Paul LaViolette


19)


July 16, 2008:  Professor Klir responds to LaViolette's email.  He expresses his sympathy with LaViolette's experience of being censored by the arxiv.org moderator.

Subj: Your last e-mail
Date: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 12:20:33 PM
From: xxxx@binghamton.edu
To: Gravitics1@aol.com

Dear Paul,

Thank you for sending me your correspondence with the arxiv moderator. I
am not surprised that you are frustrated with this stubborn censorship,
totally unscientific, which pretends to serve science. Thank you also
for the address of your parents, to which I will mail copies of the
journal with your paper.

I expect that your paper is now in production, so you have to wait for
proofs to make any corrections in it...

With best regards,

George Klir


20)


July 17, 2008:  LaViolette writes to the arxiv.org moderators informing them that his paper was reviewed by three physicists before being accepted for publication.

Subj: Re: (moderation) question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:00:52 PM
From:
To: moderation@arxiv.org
cc: xxxx@binghamton.edu

Dear arXiv-moderation,

Concerning the paper: "The Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern":

I am writing to confirm that my paper was reviewed by three physicists. Professor George Klir, editor of the International Journal of General Systems, has stated as follows concerning the peer review of my paper:
"I asked four physicists to review the paper and I received reviews by three of them. They all made various comments and suggestions, and asked some questions, but they all recommended that the paper be published ... I sent the three reviews to LaViolette, together with my own review, and asked him to respond to all these reviews. He substantially revised the paper and explained in detail how he actually revised it. After that, I accepted the paper and sent it to production."

I hope this is sufficient to answer your concerns about the review of my paper and that you will now allow it to be posted in the Nonlinear Systems section of arxiv.org.

Sincerely,

Paul LaViolette

 

LaViolette received no reply from the moderator, just this automated computer response:

Subj: RE: Re: moderation question about paper 0805.1216
Date: Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:59:43 PM
From: no-reply@arXiv.org
To: starburstfound@aol.com

Your moderation query has been received and will be given due consideration.
Pending moderation queries are reviewed weekly.
Further action is neither necessary nor helpful to speed up the process.
(In particular, e-mail to any other addresses about moderation issues
will be left unattended.)

Thank you for your patience.


21)


April 29, 2009: Update

      In the nine months since his last email to the arxiv.org moderators, LaViolette has received no response back from them.  In June 20, 2008, arxiv.org stated that their concern was that LaViolette's paper had not been reviewed by physicists.  On July 17, he affirmed to them that it had been reviewed by three physicists and quotes from the editor's email.  Paul Ginsparg, administrator of arxiv.org, also had the opportunity to learn of this directly from his email exchange with the IJGS editorial board.  So the unwillingness of Ginsparg, or the arxiv.org moderator to respond to LaViolette's request for posting indicates that they have completely exhausted their reasons for not allowing his paper to be posted.  LaViolette has successfully challenged all of the moderator's objections.  This leaves one to conclude that their reasons are emotionally based.  They are based on the moderator's (Ginsparg's) personal distaste for a particular scientist's work, even if that scientist's peers believe the work to be sound.  The moderator objects to allowing this paper posted because it is authored by LaViolette.  LaViolette's name is on their mandatory black list.  Most would admit that the purpose of the arxiv is not for serving Ginsparg's personal tastes, but to serve the scientific community at large.  Hence he should stop his censorship activities which interfere with the archive's normal process of operation.

In summary:

•  Arxiv.org has continued to block LaViolette from posting a preprint of his paper.

•  Paul Ginsparg's aggressive action to contact the IJGS editorial board and castigate LaViolette's paper indicates that his suppressive actions go beyond merely censoring authors from posting on arxiv.org, but also include aggressive attempts to have the papers of those authors blocked from journal publication.  

•  Ginsparg failed to convince the journal to stop publication of LaViolette's paper.  The paper was published in November, 2008.

•  Ginsparg did not take up the challenge to submit a Letter to the Editor of the International Journal of General Systems to state his objections to LaViolette's paper.

•  A preprint copy of LaViolette's paper may be found at Starburstfound.org:

The Electric Charge and Magnetization Distribution of the Nucleon: Evidence of a Subatomic Turing Wave Pattern