This is the manuscript that is finding it hard to be accepted for preprints or peer review.
What I hear is:
"Your work is solely speculative, with no evidence-based scientific results presented, nor is it an in-depth review of recent scientific results. As such, it does not meet the requirements for posting on xxx."
Even for journals who posit that any well-written manuscript will be peer-reviewed I hear:
"Regrettably, we are unable to process your submission because your manuscript falls outside the scope of this journal."
What this statement means is that the way I have written the manuscript, it is "not even wrong". Or that it describes an argument or explanation that purports to be scientific but uses faulty reasoning or speculative premises, which can be neither affirmed nor denied and thus cannot be discussed rigorously and scientifically.
Currently I am seeking specific reasons from the publishers why the manuscript is rejected before peer review so that I can work on its technical quality. Hopefully I will at some point get the manuscript peer reviewed. Until that point, I will keep on working to make it falsifiable.
I'll describe a bit about the history of this manuscript. I was working on a provisional patent, where I was expanding on a previous patent, where I showed that colloidal lignin particles can be efficiently self-assembled by insertion of an organic solution of lignin into water. I had noticed that the solvents used behaved in a very peculiar manner, but not only that, it seemed that the self-assembly progressed as if water had structure.
For a long time I had tried to write a manuscript on my observations on the self-assembly of lignin, but I was always told that I made too far-reaching assumptions. This led me to search for the basic principles of aqueous (water-based) self-assembly and had the eureka moment of realizing that the quantization of water was a more concrete physical phenomenon than previously understood.
In my initial manuscript I attempted to include all of the data that I could reveal of the self-assembly of lignin without revealing corporate secrets. The manuscript became quite hard to understand, because it appeared that I had made impossible leaps of imagination. As in a well known Sidney Harris cartoon where an apparent professor remarks to a colleague "I THINK YOU SHOULD BE MORE EXPLICIT HERE IN STEP TWO" pointing at a blackboard full of equations, with the text "THEN A MIRACLE OCCURS.
My major problem is that the phenomenon, where I observed the concrete physical object of quantized water is very complex and seems to be open for interpretation. Thus, I had to rewrite the article with no mention of lignin.
This left me with a problem. What would the main claim be? I had to go back to the interpretation of the quantized nature of light based on Einstein's original paper, where he explicitly anchors his interpretation of quantized light on the kinetic theory of gases and thus the free movement of molecules in the gas phase. The theory begins with the postulate of the free movement of molecules. A postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments. This means that the only reason why the postulate is assumed to be true is because it has thus far provided the best explanation of experimental data.
What I decided to focus on this manuscript is to introduce an alternate postulate and study whether I could better explain experimental data based on it. This means that I had to make assumptions of the nature of the quantized state of matter and the movement of molecules both in gas and in liquid, if their movement is not free.
This led me to compare two graphs relating to the presence of protons in water. In the first graph, based on the free movement of molecules, the correlation was the proton concentration vs. the square root of temperature (in Kelvins)
You see, according to the theory, the average speed of molecules has the below correlation:
,which just means that the square of the average velocity of molecules is linearly correlated to their temperature. This means that whatever the average velocity is, it is correlated to the root of the temperature.
And according to the current theory, protons are released from water due to the thermal movement of the surrounding water molecules.
If you plot the proton concentration of water with the root of its temperature at the temperature range of 30 °C to 100 °C, you get the below graph. The correlation isn't really poor, but it definitely does not look too linear.
Conversely, if you consider that the temperature is only indirectly linked with the generation of protons, and the real reason for the generation of protons is the grinding of the quantized double spheres of water, we get the below graph.
The explanation of why the y-axis has the density of water is both discussed in the article and in my previous post. While the explanation might seem quite complicated at first, the reason is that this is the simplest explanation to explain how water behaves.
The criticism I have thus far received has been more related to my expertise, or ad hominem. I have thus far received no counterarguments explaining what the fault of my theory is, apart from "Your work is solely speculative, with no evidence-based scientific results presented".
Apparently comparing two graphs with each other based on the same data, but with one graph fitting an existing paradigm and the other graph fitting an alternate paradigm does not constitute as "evidence-based scientific results".
For now, this seems to be the only way to get this theory out into the world.
Comments