In reference to wherever that quote is from, and assuming that you've submitted papers and had them rejected from journals, did you stop to think if you'd satisfied the journal requirements? Here for instance is the LMS's guide to writing mathematicshttp://www.lms.ac.uk/publications/documents/writing.pdf
not to mention the house style guidelines for journals need to be met (correct formatting, reference type, document type, did you follow all the necessary steps?)
If the papers you submitted are anything like the ones you post here then it is no surprise they reject them without even looking at the mathematics.
One thing that you frequently fail to realize is that on this website you have received plenty of attention, and constructive criticism as well as advice as to how to go about doing this stuff properly. We do not think you are a crank or crackpot; you evidently know a fair amount of mathematics and physics, albeit highly specialized. What you dont' seem to understand is what constitutes substantial original work and how to present it.
Here, again is some constructive criticism: it does not suffice to say look, if we can do this then we could do that. Eg, if we could write down a kernel and then evaluate the 'Fourier' coefficients of F(z) then we if we could show this then we can prove that, which is the standard format of your posts. You would actually have to do one of two things for this to be interesting to anyone else
1. demonstrate that the process which allows the translation of a problem into another area is actually valid
say the translation of a problem about topological spaces into one about groups via algebraic topoology
or, if 1. is not possible
2. demonstrate that the translated problem, even if you cannot prove the translation holds, is solvable, or prove something about it.
Both of these things constitute research that would be interesting to someone else. As an example of type 2 stuff, one needs look at random matrix theory. We can draw formal analogies between random matrices and number theory, but they do not hold really. However, it does allow conjectures in one area to be translated into conjectures in another and has led to new results in each area even though you cannot translate the proofs (the analogy tells you what to prove, if you will, not how to prove it).
Fame has nothing to do with whether or not you are published. Famous writers get their articles rejected all the time, just as unknown people get theirs accepted all the time. A piece of advice I got recently from a 'famous' person was that they got about 10% of all their submisssions rejected, and if you (me, in this case) didn't have a similar failure rate then you just weren't aiming at presitgious enough journals.
I seem to remember you saying that you were looking for a career, Jose, so why not put your efforts to good use and start a phd? you'd get paid for what you do in your spare time right now, and you'd have that endorsement you seem to think will make all the difference.
