Date: 22 Jan 2009 07:40:15 -0500
From: Foundations of Physics
Subject: Editor's decision on FOOP692R1

Dear Ulrich Bruchholz,

We have received your submission FOOP692R1 entitled
"Key Notes on a Geometric Theory of Fields"

Before entering a submission to the reviewing process, we check whether
it obeys criteria such as the following:

- Is the topic of research suitable for this journal?
- Does the paper contain original ideas and new results?
- Are the arguments and calculations accurate and correct?
- Is the exposition sufficiently well organized, and worded well?
- Does the overall quality agree with our very tough standards?

I regret to inform you that the editors had to conclude that this work is not suitable for publication in Foundations of Physics. It is largely a resubmission of a manuscript that had been rejected by the Editors before. Therefore the Editors see insufficient reason to reconsider it.

I would like to thank you very much for forwarding your manuscript to us for consideration and wish you every success in finding an alternative place of publication.

With kind regards,

Gerard 't Hooft
Chief Editor

[end of quotation]

Actually, such kind of "reasons" is not worth to be commented. However, I have to point out facts:
1) The article was indicated to be under review from 29 Oct 2008.
2) I declared this article as a revision of the mentioned from beginning. I was invited to revise this revision. As well, I have widely fulfilled the conditions. The unchanged parts are pure facts.
- Why has 't Hooft not disclosed the rewiews ? Or it was decided from beginning to reject the article ? Has anybody read it at all ?

It is fact, that there is not a single objection to the content. As well, the role of Jadczyk and Bruhn, quoted in the article, turns up to be opaque. Both know that the Geometric theory of fields (GF) is objectively right. GF is based on the math as taught by Bruhn. Jadczyk asked specific questions until he had to pass. He could make editors, who are friend with him, accept this paper. - However, all (inclusive of mentioned persons) embezzle the unique support of GF by the results from numerical simulations. Editors, and all, who assessed GF as inferior (without any reason), made a fool of themselves ignoring these results. It's beyond my grasp, how people, who call themselves scientists, permanently close the eyes in view of the highly significant correlations in these results. - Do they fear the results, or intend to steal them ?

9 Feb 2009
Ulrich Bruchholz