Correspondence with the Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences regarding my manuscript titled “A Simple Relativity Theory of Everything”
Correspondence with the Proceedings of the National academy of Sciences regarding my
manuscript titled “A Simple Relativity Theory of Everything”
22/8/2012
Dear Editor,
I shall be thankful if you would consider publishing the enclosed manuscript in PNAS. In the
manuscript, titled “A Simple Relativity Theory of Everything”, I propose as an alternative to
Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory. The new theory postulates that everything is relative, including
the velocity of light.
For low energies, the derived laws of kinematics reduce to Newton’s laws of motion and energy. For
energies above a threshold determined by the Golden Ratio, the theory yields quantum mechanics and
big bang cosmology.
No less important, the theory proposes novel definitions of Dark Matter and Dark energy, and
uses them to make fairly accurate predictions regarding the content of the universe.
Other important predictions of the theory include:
(1) Prediction of the accelerating expansion of the universe.
(2) Precise estimate of the Hubble Constant.
(3) Prediction of quantum criticality at energies corresponding to the Golden Ratio, a result obtained
experimentally by Coldea et al. (Science 2010).
(4) Prediction of the (v-c)/c values reported in all recent neutrino velocity experiments.
Your consideration is much appreciated.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Suleiman
Ramzi Suleiman
Department of Psychology
University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel, 31905
Home phone: ++972-(0)4-851-5135
Cell Phones: ++972-(0)505-474-215, +31-6-2272-8828
Fax: ++972 4 8240966
Email:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Homepage: http://suleiman.haifa.ac.il
Standard letter confirming the receipt of the manuscript - missing
From:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
[mailto:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
]
Sent: Friday, August 24, 2012 10:08 PM
To:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Subject: PNAS MS# 2012-14058 Decision Notification
August 24, 2012
Title: "A Simple Relativity Theory of Everything"
Tracking #: 2012-14058
Authors: Suleiman
Dear Prof. Suleiman,
I regret to inform you that the PNAS Editorial Board has declined your manuscript
[MS# 2012-14058] for further consideration. We receive many more good papers than we can publish
and the Board must carefully weigh which papers merit external review. The Board concluded that
while interesting, your paper lacked the broad appeal necessary for further consideration by the
journal.
Once a paper has been declined, it may not be resubmitted through an Academy member. Please note
that the PNAS License to Publish conveyed at initial submission is terminated.
Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PNAS. I am sorry we cannot be more encouraging this
time, and I hope that you will consider submitting future work to PNAS.
Sincerely yours,
Inder M. Verma
Editor-in-Chief
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ramzi Suleiman [mailto:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
]
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:44 AM
To: PNAS
Cc: 'Ramzi Suleiman'
Subject: RE: PNAS MS# 2012-14058 Decision Notification
Dear Dr. Verma
Your reply is very disappointing. Not only because it denies me the opportunity for a possible
publication in PNAS, but also because it shows a dark side of PNAS, being suppressor, rather than
promoter, of new ideas and thoughts, when they conflict with existing theories, or with the prior
beliefs and dogmas of this or that member of PNAS editorial. I use the words “beliefs and dogmas”
because they describe how most physicists relate to Einstein and his works, which as we both know,
was the real reason behind rejecting my paper without an in-depth review.
With all due respect, your rejection letter made me laugh! I submit to you a THEORY OF
EVERYTHING and you write to me that my paper ”LACKS THE BROAD APPEAL”. One result of
many in the paper (see last section), PUTS FORWARD A RELATIVISTIC DEFINITION OF
BLACK ENERGY AND BLACK MATTER AND PREDICTS THEIR OBSERVED AMOUNT
WITH IMPRESSIVE ACCURACY. So, in fact I submit to you a paper, that in addition to many
important results (read the abstract!), suggests a solution to the mystery of what comprises more than
95% , and you, sir give me the standard letter of “lack of the general appeal”!!!
A prominent theoretical physicist who read the manuscript wrote to me: “Your paper is the most
important paper ever written since relativity and quantum mechanics. Your results are startling,
incredible and I am jealous that I am not the first one to notice that this is the explanation for the
missing 95% of energy in the universe. ……I read your paper thoroughly. You made one of the
biggest discoveries in theoretical physics which also agrees with experiments. No human being can
explain what dark energy is and where it comes from. You did. Moreover I am convinced you are
right. I think you deserve the Nobel Prize for that”.
I think that PNAS has made an incredibly wrong and unfair decision, one which puts to mockery any
minimal standard of scientific ethics. You have used a false, actually a ridiculous, justification in
order to deny my paper the possibility for a due process, and possibly, a prestigious publication in
PNAS.
I ask you to reconsider your decision. Please note that I do not intend to step back until I receive a fair
treatment from PNAS.
Sincerely
Ramzi Suleiman
From: Conley, Ryan [mailto:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
]
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 9:47 PM
To: '
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
';
Subject: RE: PNAS MS# 2012-14058 Decision Notification
Dr. Suleiman,
We have received your email and forwarded it appropriately. You will be contacted again as soon as
possible.
Ryan Conley
PNAS Editorial Office
Dear Dr. Conley,
Thank you very much for your reply. I look forward to hearing from PNAS editorial.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Suleiman
On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 16:50:35 -0400,
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
wrote:
Full Email Recipient List:
TO:
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
CC:
September 6, 2012
Dear Dr. Suleiman,
Thank you for submitting your appeal. After careful deliberation, we regret to inform you that your
appeal has been declined. The editor was not moved to overturn the original decision, and we must
consider the paper to be without the possibility of resubmission.
We are sorry we cannot be more encouraging at this time and hope you will consider us in the future.
Sincerely,
Ryan Conley
PNAS Editorial Office
(p) 202.334.2679
(f) 202.334.2739
(e)
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
----------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: PNAS: 2012-14058 Decision Notification
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:14:25 +0300
From: Suleiman < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
To: < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >, < This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. >
Dear Dr. Conley,
I feel very disappointed from PNAS decision. PNAS reply ignores my appeal completely. It does not
provide any explanation about what your "careful deliberations" (if any!) were, nor on what basis
PNAS have based the decision to turn down my appeal. I am confident that my paper was denied the
opportunity of a fair process, only because it conflicts with Einstein's Special Relativity Theory.
PNAS is not the only journal to act in such outrageous manner. Thus I have prepared a press
communicate in Arabic, Hebrew and English (see attached), which will be distributed worldwide. I
have also spoken to my lawyer about the possibility of filing a petition against PNAS and its board
members.
As I mentioned in my earlier email, I do not intend to step back until my manuscript receive a fair and
unbiased treatment.
Sincerely,
Ramzi Suleiman