The quantum universe.

[jozef]

The quantum universe. About ten years ago, I understood how the universe works. My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics would also be beneficial for applied physics. And of course, beneficial to mankind. Can anyone advise a good physical magazine, best to contact a specific person who would be open to new ideas? I understand the universe at the quantum level, and I have answers to many questions! Now I just need a good manager. Thank you for your help.

[RichIsnang]

Good luck, to quote juanrga ' the 'i have the answers' Market is quite conpetitive'

[mississippichem]

The quantum universe. About ten years ago, I understood how the universe works. My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics would also be beneficial for applied physics. And of course, beneficial to mankind. Can anyone advise a good physical magazine, best to contact a specific person who would be open to new ideas? I understand the universe at the quantum level, and I have answers to many questions! Now I just need a good manager. Thank you for your help.

 

1. Write a paper on one specific aspect of your work.

 

2. Publish

 

3. Write grant proposals for money

 

4. Rinse wash repeat ad infinitum

 

Welcome to a career in science.

[md65536]

The quantum universe. About ten years ago, I understood how the universe works. My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics would also be beneficial for applied physics. And of course, beneficial to mankind. Can anyone advise a good physical magazine, best to contact a specific person who would be open to new ideas? I understand the universe at the quantum level, and I have answers to many questions! Now I just need a good manager. Thank you for your help.

 

I am not a published author of any papers so I'll only answer in questions that hopefully someone with more experience might comment on.

 

1) Why do you need a manager? You're writing papers, right, and not books? If your primary role is scientist rather than author, I don't think you need a manager... is it help and advice you want? Perhaps some kind of academic advisor, and I don't know where to find such a role outside of academia.

 

2) http://www.doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=49&uiLanguage=en A list of "open access" physics journals. Open access refers to access by readers, but would these tend to also be more accessible to writers? There's one on metaphysics that might be more open to new ideas...

 

Worst case there is always vixra.org (prepub, not quite "published" but at least you can get your work out there). Upload there and people will tend to not bother or take you seriously, but it might be a first step. This is for uploading "finished" work, not for finding people to help you.

 

3) Don't go bugging individuals for help? I assume that a million crazy people (yes, many are literally insane, sadly) bug anyone they can with their pet theories, and I don't think anyone pays attention to people who say things like "My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics". Come up with results. No one cares about grand posturing and promises without at least some results, because no one ever delivers on such huge claims.

 

4) Write an abstract? If you don't have a paper finished, have at least the abstract. (Not an introduction.) There are too many papers out there, and "no one" will read them all to see which ones are interesting. People read the abstracts to find out if it's worth reading the paper. Again, it's about specific results listed in the abstract, not vague claims.

 

Then, anywhere where you are contacting someone trying to get people interested (like by posting in this thread) include the abstract so that people know whether or not to be interested. (And make it good, or they won't be. You can get help on that.)

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think my advice is: Just write. A paper speaks for itself. Results (backed up) speak for themselves. Or go to grad school, and get hooked up with a prof who will help guide you???

 

1. Write a paper on one specific aspect of your work.

 

2. Publish

 

How do you find a journal etc. to publish to?

Do you just submit a finished paper to one (or many?) and hope for acceptance?

Do you need academic affiliation or an endorsement to even be considered?

 

[jozef]

I am not a published author of any papers so I'll only answer in questions that hopefully someone with more experience might comment on.

 

1) Why do you need a manager? You're writing papers, right, and not books? If your primary role is scientist rather than author, I don't think you need a manager... is it help and advice you want? Perhaps some kind of academic advisor, and I don't know where to find such a role outside of academia.

 

2) http://www.doaj.org/...9&uiLanguage=en A list of "open access" physics journals. Open access refers to access by readers, but would these tend to also be more accessible to writers? There's one on metaphysics that might be more open to new ideas...

 

Worst case there is always vixra.org (prepub, not quite "published" but at least you can get your work out there). Upload there and people will tend to not bother or take you seriously, but it might be a first step. This is for uploading "finished" work, not for finding people to help you.

 

3) Don't go bugging individuals for help? I assume that a million crazy people (yes, many are literally insane, sadly) bug anyone they can with their pet theories, and I don't think anyone pays attention to people who say things like "My thoughts would destroy the current theoretical physics". Come up with results. No one cares about grand posturing and promises without at least some results, because no one ever delivers on such huge claims.

 

4) Write an abstract? If you don't have a paper finished, have at least the abstract. (Not an introduction.) There are too many papers out there, and "no one" will read them all to see which ones are interesting. People read the abstracts to find out if it's worth reading the paper. Again, it's about specific results listed in the abstract, not vague claims.

 

Then, anywhere where you are contacting someone trying to get people interested (like by posting in this thread) include the abstract so that people know whether or not to be interested. (And make it good, or they won't be. You can get help on that.)

 

 

 

In conclusion, I think my advice is: Just write. A paper speaks for itself. Results (backed up) speak for themselves. Or go to grad school, and get hooked up with a prof who will help guide you???

 

 

 

How do you find a journal etc. to publish to?

Do you just submit a finished paper to one (or many?) and hope for acceptance?

Do you need academic affiliation or an endorsement to even be considered?

 

 

Thank you for the address of the magazine, I'll try to get himself further, but if someone can help me board even more I like.

 

 

 

Thank you very much for all the links. Basic article I put on the forums already twice. I tried to be simple, but it can still be quite complicated, probably because no one understood him. I wrote him for quite a long time ago and now I am able to revise it to be aste simpler and more scientific. It is not an attack on Einstein. I also builds on Einstein's work, but not the theory of relativity. If you find a way to publish this article first, promise to continue to run a revolution in theoretical physics. So again I enclose an article if he does not understand please let me know. If it needs to be revised if the translation needs better pay it. Please those who understand the article let me advise who would be able to publish. Or let me order another way of presenting my ideas. Again, thank you very much and apologize for late response but I am not not hope.

 

 

 

 

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 Kyjevská 1 Rožňava 04801 Slovensko EU

 

 

Theoretical Physic Evolution

113 dní staré Citácia Oznámiť spam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 Kyjevská 1 Rožňava 04801 Slovensko EU

 

Bez názvu.bmp

[md65536]

Basic article I put on the forums already twice. I tried to be simple, but it can still be quite complicated, probably because no one understood him.

 

I'm not sure who would be interested in this or who would publish it. I very much doubt it's suitable for any scientific journal, sorry.

vixra.org, or scribd.com might be your best bet???

 

I would encourage you to NOT spend too much more effort on this.

 

If however you're driven by this and are not going to let discouragement stop you, then don't let me get you down!!!

Write an abstract!

Check out some of the "Further Information" links on the list I linked (http://www.doaj.org/...49&func=subject), which may advise on what they're looking for. Eg. "The manuscript should be as concise as possible with an abstract not exceeding 200 words."

 

What you posted here was too long. I couldn't even bother reading through it, because the first few sentences lost me.

I've posted this link a few times: http://www.lightblue...te-an-abstract/

There may be better guides out there but this one should let you see the point of an abstract, why it's necessary for what you're trying to do (get people interested), and what it needs in order to be good enough. And... if you can't get a person interested using a 150 or 200-word abstract, they're not going to be interested in reading a few thousand words.

 

 

 

 

Again, I want to encourage you to NOT spend time on this and do something else. Learn some more physics. Write more, and practice writing, if that's your interest. But if you keep working on it, maybe find one concrete conclusion of your work, and focus on it, learn what it will take to prove that it's correct (or not --- it must be falsifiable), read other papers to see how it's done right, etc. Go to school. Learn about the topic through existing work as much as you can. Find people to discuss the idea with among those with whom you share mutual understanding of the existing work. --- This is not the path you've chosen but the way you're going about this leaves you with HUGE obstacles to face and ends in NEAR CERTAIN failure.

 

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

 

So, I can't help thinking that I should clarify my advice and explain why I gave it. I'll try to show this by example.

 

 

Example 1: Here's what I'd say is so bad of an abstract that it wouldn't even qualify as one:

"In this paper I present some thought experiments related to relativity, and the results are very surprising. It forces us to rethink all of physics. The conclusions drawn are absolutely mind-boggling."

 

- Don't promise people it's interesting. Tell them what it is that's interesting.

- It doesn't explain any details or any specific results. Mystery is not a virtue here.

 

 

Example 2: An insufficient abstract.

"We examine a thought experiment involving a train moving at relativistic speeds, and find that the moving frame's clock ticks faster than a stationary frame's, contrary to Einstein's special theory of relativity."

 

- Nope. You did something wrong. If your paper contradicts accepted laws, that's a problem that needs to be addressed, and I don't see it being addressed. Most people aren't interested in reading every flawed paper to try to figure out the flaw.

 

 

Example 3: A good abstract in my amateur opinion. Having never written a good one, this is my best attempt at what you might strive for, and I wouldn't mind other people's opinions on it.

"We examine a thought experiment involving a train moving at relativistic speeds, and present a curious result where the moving frame's clock seems to tick faster than a stationary frame's, contrary to predictions of Einstein's special theory of relativity. We are able to resolve these contradictory results by ____________."

 

Or perhaps that last line might be, "This suggests a modification to the theory, whereby _________. This may be experimentally verified by __________. Existing experimental results are shown to be in agreement with this modification because _________."

 

 

Those blanks are what you're missing.

Filling in the blanks I believe is impossible (because special relativity is correct). It may be worth it to try to fill them in, possibly even learning where you went wrong, but committing yourself to an impossible task may be foolish.

Edited June 27, 2012 by md65536

[jozef]

 

 

 

Thank you for your advice, article review. Certainly be reduced. I understand your views on the theory of relativity, relativity, among other things, ways of thinking, when I tried to think under it by yourself and at the same time, I had about a month in the head chaotic. Today I have been clear and I think both ways. I want to push this issue, I know that it is not in the course, but if someone takes the truth and this is a good start. While it will not go I have to choose a different approach. For example, to write something that would unify gravity and magnetism. Who could be interested in something? Thank you.