sci.physics.electromag

Erin Richardson has sent me an explanation of the rejection (see
below). My reply is:

My analysis of the technical contents of works of seventeen famous
authors surpasses the authors' analysis. My analysis gives results
that are unexpected for the authors. I refute their conclusions and
show that, in reality, results of these works contradict the
electrodynamics. I prove my clear main claim: Spin of a light beam is
not a moment of Poynting vector. Spin of a light beam must be added to
the moment of Poynting vector of the beam. This result, as well as the
topics of the authors' works, is in the scope of meeting particularly.
My result is original one particularly. I claimed this result before
2001 [1, 2, 3]. Nobody has ever claimed this result. Quite the
contrary, this result was rejected or ignored by Editors, opponents,
and reviewers many times.
Dear Erin Richardson: Sorry, it is hard to believe you have read my
papers.

Erin Richardson wrote on February 27, 2008:
Dear Dr. Khrapko: The committee cited the following reasons for
rejection of your papers:for 705, limited technical content; claims
not sufficiently supported; not clear; insufficient meeting interest /
outside scope of meeting; and for 708, insufficient originality;
claims not sufficiently supported; key information omitted; not clear;
insufficient meetinginterest / outside scope of meeting. You are
welcome to submit postdeadline papers, but if you choose to doso
please keep in mind the information noted above. Thank you for your
interest in the meeting. Best regards, Erin Richardson Manager,
Technical Programs The Optical Society

[1] R. I. Khrapko, "True energy-momentum tensors are unique.
Electrodynamics spin tensor is not zero," physics/0102084.
[2] R. I. Khrapko, "Violation of the gauge equivalence," physics/
0105031
[3] R. I. Khrapko, "Does plane wave not carry a spin?" Amer. J. Phys.
69, 405 (2001)

Radi Khrapko