Strange

That wasn't evidence. It was just a random, baseless and non-physical guess. You can't make something up and then claim it is evidence for something else you make up in order to explain the first thing. It is taking the fallacy of begging the question to a whole new level.

Citation needed.

All observers measure the same mass. They don't measure the same length. Because mass is invariant (the same for all observers) but length isn't. But if you start comparing rest mass with total mass-energy (sometimes called, misleadingly, "relativistic mass") then you are not comparing the same thing. As swansont has said, energy is observer dependent (while mass isn't).

Because there is no such thing? Well, actually, there is: the distance between events in space-time is invariant. And this is what leads to different observers getting different measurements of length or time.

Particles that are made of two quarks are called mesons. They have spin 0 or spin 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meson So you are inventing particles that combine in an invented way to solve an invented problem. And none of this has any supporting evidence. Again, that is not how science works. Oh, so it is. Sorry.

Ooops.

The vertical axis is frequency. The horizontal axis is temperature. The resonant frequency decreases as the device warms up. This is because this changes the size, the "stiffness" of the material, etc. and hence its resonant frequency.

I don't understand the question. Range of what? Make a difference to what? What is the smallest possible what? Tuning fork? Using silicon fabrication technology, a few microns. For example: http://micromachine.stanford.edu/~hopcroft/Research/resonators.html

Then they can't be quarks. How can two spin 1/2 particles combine to create a spin 1/2 particle? So you have made up two new types of particles, for which there is no evidence, as components of the electron despite the fact that there is no evidence it is a composite particle. You might be surprised to learn that that isn't how science works. And you have hijacked someone else's thread to do it.

If you reduce the size, then the resonant frequency is higher. (The frequency also depends on the material.) For example, a 4mm tuning fork can have a frequency of 32 kHz: http://www.madcitylabs.com/tuningforks.html

I assume the evidence is: "It makes sense to me so it must be true". The fact that it is incomprehensible gibberish to anyone else doesn't, apparently, invalidate that.

You can wear a black and white striped coat; does that mean that black and white are not opposites? Er, zero is a number.

Bad day at the office?

You said earlier: Yes, it can be hard to take corrections and constructive criticism. But it is important to get over the emotion and focus on learning from it. It is not their job to do that. They wish to remain polite and so they make polite comments such as "We do not doubt the technical quality of your work" which means they haven't read it or they couldn't read it. OK. I will get back to you later today or tomorrow...

If you want to do science, then I recommend you go to university and study. You are not going to get very far with your current approach. You seem to have missed the keywords: In other words: They are not able/willing to publish This means: it does not provide the necessary advance in general understanding that would be needed for publication in Nature Physics.

I am being friendly by trying to help you. You stubbornly refuse to be helped. This appears to be completely irrelevant. I don't know who you mean by "someone who believe so strongly themselves" (presumably it is you). I don't know why you mention it. I don't know what you think is illogical. I do not know what is is that no "intelligent people would do" So, no, I don't understand. We don't need to see your score. We can see your English! I don't know what point you are referring to. But as they have said that they will not publish then you should stop emailing them. You will only damage any future chance you might have.

Please don't try and argue about English grammar when yours is execrable. I didn't say "what is interference" because I know, in general terms, what interference is. My question was: "What sort of interference are you referring to here". (Your version was totally ungrammatical.) You are (mis)using the word interference instead of modification. So in the second word of your title, you have used the wrong word and will have completely confused/misled the reader. Not a great start. Until you are willing to admit that your English is very poor (verging on incomprehensible) and get help from a native speaker, I doubt you will get anything published.

What interference? Why not?

More specifically, they said they will not publish your manuscript because it does not meet their standards. More specifically still, that is because it doesn't offer a good enough advance in general understanding. Correct. They will not publish your manuscript. Just judging from the title of your manuscript, you really need some help with your English. The offer still stands ...

Citation needed? My understanding is that the magnetic moment is two thousandths larger than predicted by Dirac (so not "much stronger"). And the correct value is predicted by QED: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_magnetic_dipole_moment#Electron But maybe you mean something else?

This is quite complicated. It is because the transistor consists of several layers of semiconductor material with different properties. Applying a voltage to the base effectively changes the resistance between the collector and emitter. It depends on what you want to achieve. In this case, it may be because you are interesting in the alternating voltage because it represents the music you want to hear. In some circuits you want the DC voltage but not the alternating voltage. For example to generate a voltage to charge a battery from the AC power.

3) People here are friendly, polite and helpful. You may not find reviewers of your paper so sympathetic.

I certainly was not expecting you to pay. I was just offering to help.

This makes me wonder if you understood the question. This is not a sane answer. Then why not show us a sample of your carefully written abstract so we can see how well you have succeeded at this.

So you would prefer that I lie to you to protect your fragile ego from the truth.