generation of energy by fusion

[jozef]

Protection of electricity distributionnetworks from the effects of solar wind.

 

- generation of energy by fusion

 

- alternative propulsion forinterplanetary flights.

 

 

 

 

My name is Jozef Czobor. ActuallyI do not have any education in the field of theoretical physics, it is myhobby and I´ve been interested in theworld and its way of function from a physical point of view for many years.I do not have an education in this field and I consider it as an advantage becauseI can have a look at these problems from a different point ofview than a person who studied the theoretical physics, becasue he isprogrammed forward how to solve these problems. Moreover I know that forthe research of the modern trends nowadays such as : dark energy and dark massa lot of money is used. Thesethings are only theoretical nonsense thingswhich are only the results of a misunderstanding of the examinedreality. Since I claim some thingswhich contradict those things w hich are nowadays correct, I do not wonderthat nobody gives his opinion on my work. Most of people think that I donot understand anything. I willaccept it if somebody tells me where isa mistake in my logic. Till that time I will continue in my aim with Galileo´s quotation : "And yetit moves". Withthis letter a want to try to launch my ideas but it is not easy because newthings are often accepted with aversion. So I would like to try thecommercial ways as well. So if somebody works with the solution of thefollowing problems:

 

- Protection of electricity distributionnetworks from the effects of solar wind.

 

- generation of energy by fusion

 

- alternative propulsion forinterplanetary flights.

 

I have good financial sourcesso I think that I can have a significant step forward withinthese fields of research. The way of my thinking is clear from the appendix from the article Evolution of theoreticalphysics, which can be seen as a primitive one but I think it deserves the Nobel price because there isdefined a new phyisical law. Its validity had to come if we want thetheoretical physics move forward. SoI am surprised that nobody has the courage to publish it for me. Ifthere was somebody among the publishers who would be disposed to publish my work, I am sure that he would launch a revolution in theoreticalphysics. In the case you do not understand something in the text and you thinkthat it should be worked out thencontact me please. I do not speak English but I will try tocommunicate in this language but it will last a little bit longer. For theother scientists . If we can cooperate the way, that the copyright will be mineand you are interested in this cooperation, I am waiting for the offers.If you want to understand how does the universe work, I know it. SoI hope that there will be somebody who will try to help me to change theworld.

 

 

 

JOZEF CZOBOR email removed

Safarikova 88

Rožnava

04801

Slovevsko

 

[CaptainPanic]

!

Moderator Note

Jozef,
I have removed your email for your own protection. It would get picked up by lots of spam bots.

To people who want to reply to Jozef, please just post in this thread. Or, alternatively, use our "Personal Message" tool. Click on "jozef" at the top left of the post, and then click on "Send me a message". Then Jozef can send his email to you through the personal message, which means the spam bots cannot see it.

[RichIsnang]

Space bar broken?

[jozef]

Theoretical Physic Evolution

 

 

Everything around us is evolving. Something faster, something slower and something by jump. For example the mankind understanding of the Universe – the deck on the turtle back in the past. Nowadays we can understand it like a package of different theories understood by the biggest brains of the present days. Or are they just doing so? The present is not the matter of easy understanding for the every day man, but the future will bring the change, because it’s estimated to have one and only Theory taking the Universe as one whole unit. But is the mankind prepared for such Theory? Based on my experience I can say: it is not! But I would like to change this fact by the alternative view at the Einstein’s Theory of relativity; I consider being one of the footstones of current Theoretical Physic. But now take just the logic and mathematics for elementary schools.

 

The example I want to use for the demonstration is simple and absolute base of Einstein’s theory – the space train ending up in really surprising results. Lets choose following calculation parameters: speed 225 000 km per second, length of the space wagon 600 000 km (see AB on the picture enclosed) , highness of the space wagon is 400 000 km. May be you are surprised by the extremeness of the chosen parameters, but I do not feel any limitation in this direction at all, wit one exception, of course: the speed limit at maximum 300 000 km/s. Now we can place light generator in the middle of ceiling and directing it to the middle of the floor deck (to D point), absolute classic way. And now the calculation of the observer’s view inside the wagon: Light must overrun 400 000km distance from C to D, which will take 4/3 of second. But the observer located out of the wagon perceives it different way. D can move to the point, where B was upon 4/3s. And because 4/3 time 225 000 km = 300 000km and the train’s motion is oriented from left to right, of course. From outside train observer perspective the light must overrun trajectory CB, so according the Pythagoras the light must overrun 500 000 km long trajectory which takes 5/3 s. Consequently the time dilatation is x=4/5=0,8. The 0,8 is a coefficient indicating time wearing between inside and outside wagon observer. This calculation is nothing serious so far, it’s just the Einstein Theory fundament, slightly adjusted for the simplyfied calculation. Nothing serious so far, also because the time dilatation is still lower than 1 and its still valid, that time from moving observer perspective runs slower than time from staidness observer point of view.

 

But now, let’s change next parameter, can be changed: Light direction. Let’s light generator shine from C to A, means to the end of the wagon. From moving observer point of view the light have to overrun 500 000 km, because CA=CB=500 000km and it will take 5/3 s. From outside wagon observer point of view the light will overrun 375 000 km within 5/3 s to the point E, means 75 000 km behind D point. So from the outside wagon observer perspective the light must overrun CE trajectory, which is app. 406 000 km long. I allow myself to round it to the 400 000 km and light overrun this distance upon 4/3 s. Now we have got new time dilatation x=5/4=1,25. Even I decided to round the calculation; this fact is not relevant for our purpose. Important is the fact, that time dilatation is more than 1. Means that time for observer inside the wagon (moving by 225 000 km/s speed) running faster than the time of observer standing outside the wagon – exactly opposite way than Einstein’s Theory is saying and moreover the way of calculation I have just demonstrated to you can be applied for any quantity of mathematic models with arbitrary number of solutions. Therefore it can not be presented, that some speed has some concrete influence on time running, because there are unlimited quantity of possible results. Only important fact is what parameters are used and how many time are these parameters changed.

 

Consequently we can not say that certain speed has some concrete influence on the time running, we can not say that any speed has any influence on running time!!! I can imagine how the one can be irritated by these words, but the model I have demonstrate is so simple and so crystal clear, that it has to be revaluated, if the Einstein’s Theory really explains equal light spreading speed on the Earth surface to every direction by the exactly same speed. Than I hope you will realize the fact, that the time is physical category artificially created by the man to be able describe perceived effects having certain length duration and no one form these effects can have any influence on a time running speed.

 

I also hope, you like this new future modern physical principle and when comes to the question, why the light is spread to the all distance the same speed, the answer is simple as simple is the whole Universe!!!!!

 

Only we have to do, is to understand it, Are you curious?????

 

Jozef Czobor Šafarikova 88 Rožňava 04801 Slovensko EU

 

[mindless]

Why not start by reading a simple introduction to Relativity like the Wikibook "Special Relativity" http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/74/Special_Relativity_V2.11.pdf

[jozef]

Picture for my artickle - Theoretical Physic Evolution

 

Why not start by reading a simple introduction to Relativity like the Wikibook "Special Relativity" http://upload.wikime...ivity_V2.11.pdf

 

 

Sorry, article demonstrates that time is not relative ! Jozef .

[swansont]

Sorry, article demonstrates that time is not relative ! Jozef .

 

Empirical data show that it is. Empirical data wins.

[jozef]

Empirical data show that it is. Empirical data wins.

 

well, you win, mathematics and logic lost .Empirical data , what ? I am not a physicist ! Do you? To find fault in my work .Or either of a specific

what empirical data .The question at the end :traveling by car .Your time is different than mine? Thank you Jozef .

 

[swansont]

well, you win, mathematics and logic lost .Empirical data , what ? I am not a physicist ! Do you? To find fault in my work .Or either of a specific

what empirical data .The question at the end :traveling by car .Your time is different than mine? Thank you Jozef .

 

If you predict something that is contradicted by nature, you have made an error somewhere. The math may (or may not) be perfect, but there is also a requirement that it be a description of real world behavior. Galilean transformations, for example, work perfectly fine, but that's not how nature behaves, and the goal of science is to describe how nature behaves.

[jozef]

If you predict something that is contradicted by nature, you have made an error somewhere. The math may (or may not) be perfect, but there is also a requirement that it be a description of real world behavior. Galilean transformations, for example, work perfectly fine, but that's not how nature behaves, and the goal of science is to describe how nature behaves.

 

 

I agree, very correctly. Try to read my article and understand it! And the observation of nature can lead to wrong conclusions. It is important to communicate.