|
Dear
Michael Roll,
As it stands the rejection looks reasonable because it implies
it was assessed "fairly and openly". The truth is very different. Both
rejection letters made absolutely no reference to anything in the paper. Both
simply extolled the perfection of general relativity as the best possible theory
of gravity which could ever be devised and that was it!
It was very clear that both assessors had simply looked at the
title, guessed the contents and never bothered to read the text.
The content was that an attempt to find a theory of quantum
gravity led to the need to explore the existence of a background medium
consisting of a mixture of particles made of negative as well as positive
energy.
Then that the mathematical consequence was the emergence of a structure having
the potential to evolve a conscious intelligence. It was then inferred that the
mind or consciousness could be immortal, existing as an part of this structure.
It was almost a copy of the presentation in Russia in 1993
entitled, Quantum gravitation and the structured ether and subsequently
re-named, Consciousness as a Sub-quantum phenomenon and published in 1997 in
"Frontier Perspectives".
A further note
I received a letter from a diamond merchant called Lennie Teal
in November 1994 which I have been trying to find in my Lennie Teal file but all
I can find is my reply dated 19/11/94 to him. But I can remember the contents.
He said he had given a copy of the 1993 Russian paper to Sir Roger Penrose at a
conference on consciousness that October and that he had read it avidly sitting
in the middle of the front row during a lecture by Rupert Sheldrake. Lennie said
he looked quite rude, just looking up now and again. Then before Lennie could
grab him for an opinion and before the discussion, Penrose dashed out of the
door and did not re-appear.
Of course Penrose is on the advisory board of the above journal
so I thought his interest meant he must be an ally. So after receiving the
Journal of Consciousness Studies rejection I wrote to him direct for support. Not receiving a reply I wrote again
pointing out the contents of the letter from Teal. Again no reply. Also after
the Frontier Perspectives later rejection I noticed Penrose name had appeared on
their panel also.
Sincerely,
Ronald Pearson
|
