(1) You must find suitable physics journal first

(2) Then you must follow all the publication ethics ruled out by editor when you type your paper

(3) Cite the suitable reference occasionally when you need to concrete the facts that you need.

(4) Submit your paper before the deadline of the journal

(5) Wait for the Reviewers feed back .

(6) If reject . Go through the revue statements of the reviewers and correct all mistakes . Or establish the facts that you have been weak in your work.

(7) Submit again .

Note - Publish a paper is not simple !

Thanks, but I already published it in Oalib journal, I think it is not peer review journal or low effective peer review

Greetings Dr. Abdelwhab. Please never give up on your love and passion for physics! Why does it matter if anyone reads your paper or not? why do you care for other peoples' response to your idea? Most people, especially the professional physicists, who think they know it all, will not give a second look at your idea, because you do not have the credentials and are not an academician. The professional physicists, such as Michio Kaku, Stephen Hawking and others, are part of a fraternity and will not allow anyone to join them unless that person is like them. Please do not be discouraged. Physics is the language to study the Universe and it belongs to everyone. the first thing is that it is your idea and you just enjoy it, that is the most important thing. the second thing about sharing with the people should be a secondary thing only. do not go for the so called high profile peer-reviewed journals, they will not accept it. they are also not perfect and you can read about the blunders they have made and continue to make. Think like Kepler. When he discovered the three laws of planetary motion and published them using his own funds, he wrote in the introduction that he can wait for 500 years for someone to read his book just like the Creator has waited for 5000 years (in Christianity, in those days, it was believed that the universe was created 5000 years ago). Finally, remember that, "through patience great things are accomplished". Lastly, never forget that you are both a Dentist and a Physicist (even if you do have any degree in it) unlike the professional physicists. Michio Kaku, for example, wrote a book on the mind and consciousness! What authority does he have to write on such a subject? what does he know about mind and consciousness? I am absolutely sure he does not really have no clue what a Neuron is and he is talking about mind and consciousness!! These are the people who are ruling physics. They are no different than the medieval church that burned Giordano Bruno at the stakes and put Galileo under home arrest. They are the "modern church". So, take care and keep thinking about physics and keep writing your ideas. forget the journals. publish your findings on your own as a book and be patient. Mustafa.

Dear Mohamed Abdelwhab.

I had watched your video. You have assumed that there was time dilation, that is,g=gamma>1. Please note that your equation g+1/g=2 has a one solution g=1. This is contrary to your assumption about time dilation, since it means the absence of time dilation and contracting of length of objects moving relative to the observer.

That is, your hypothesis coincides with the idea of Newton about the motion of bodies in Absolute space.

Thus, formulas that you received contradict your idea of explaining the reduction of the longitudinal length of body. Why? In my opinion, this happened because of the confusion in the notation: t (and t') represents for you the coordinate of event on the T-axis and the time interval; x (and x') represents for you the coordinate of event on the X-axis and a longitudinal length of the body. For example, your first formula t=g*t' is true in the general case only for intervals of time, but you interpreted this formula as it would be true for any time coordinate; and your formula x=x'/g is true for the length of any body at any relative velocity, or for any coordinates on the X-axis only at zero relative velocity, but you interpreted this formula as it would be true for any speed and for any coordinate on the X-axis.

However, your idea of explanation the reduction of the longitudinal length of the bodies is fine, but only for theories with a property of relative simultaneousness, for example, for SR of Einstein. But for absolute simultaneousness we get the conclusion about the absence of reduction of longitudinal length of the bodies, as there is no lag of time of the front points of the body relatively the rear points of the body! It is a good idea.

---

Уважаемый Mohamed Abdelwhab

Я посмотрел ваше видео. Вы предположили, что существует замедление времени, то есть,g=gamma>1. Обратите внимание, что полученное вами уравнение g+1/g=2 имеет единственное решение g=1. Это противоречит вашему предположению о замедлении времени, так как означает отсутствие замедления времени и сокращения длины у объектов, движущихся относительно наблюдателя.

То есть, ваша гипотеза совпадает с представлением Ньютона о движении тел в Абсолютном пространстве.

Итак, полученные вами формулы противоречат вашей идее объяснения сокращения продольной длины тел. Почему? На мой взгляд, это произошло из-за путаницы в обозначениях: t (и t') обозначает у вас и интервал времени и координату события на оси T; x (и x') обозначает у вас и продольную длину тела, и координату события на оси X. Например, вашу первую формулу t=g*t', верную в общем случае только для интервалов времени, вы трактовали эту формулу верной для любых координат времени; а вашу формулу x=x'/g, верную для длины любого тела при любой относительной скорости или для любых координат на оси X, но только при нулевой относительной скорости, вы трактовали эту формулу верной для любой скорости и для любых координат на оси X.

Тем не менее, ваша идея объяснения сокращения продольной длины тел является прекрасной, но только для теорий со свойством относительной одновременности, например, для SR Эйнштейна. Но для абсолютной одновременности мы получаем вывод об отсутствии сокращения продольной длины тел, так как там нет отставания во времени передних точек тела по сравнению задними точками тела! Хорошая идея.

Mustafa Ali Khan

Thank you very much for your answer, you talk about the main problem i faced that is closing the door on the new ideas, I take five years to get the idea of my theory and take two years to write a paper, then I tried to publish it to be reviewed but it is rejected in each time (it is out of interest or contradiction between SR and my theory) in fact there is no contradiction, my paper simply show that the universe consists of more dimensions than Einstein think, time move to forward absolutely t=tَ and move to backward relatively t=tَ (gamma-1)... the same thing for space, the length of the bodies contracted on motion as these bodies move to backward during its motion to forward, there are more dimension than 4 and for that reason time (of moving frames) moves slowly and length is contracted related to observer at rest.....

I discovered that "the distance that light travels vertically is absolute regardless the motion",

My theory coming from postulate that "space of moving frame is inclined with respect to observers at rest".

So I hope to find a method to prove that experimentally, without evidence it will be still theory that can be wrong or can be right.

Idea of an experiment to test inclination of moving frames with respect to stationary frame of reference is what I need now,,

Thanks again for great advice

Alexander Chepick

Thanks for comment, but I think equation (gamma+1/gamma=2) doesn't mean that gamma=1 so there is no contradiction

you can see the attached photo and give me feedback plz

Dear Mohamed Abdelwhab

@” I think equation (gamma+1/gamma=2) doesn't mean that gamma=1”

Let's solve this equation:

To do this, move 2 to the left side, and multiplying all on gamma, we obtain (gamma^2 - 2*gamma +1 =0), it is equal to (gamma-1)^2=0, that is, gamma=1.

It was necessary not to think, just solve.

If you need my Feedback, here it is:

Math - very bad,

phys - bad,

Comp - very good. ;)

---

Уважаемый Мохамед Abdelwhab.

@«я думаю, что уравнение (гамма+1/гамма=2) не означает, что гамма=1»

Решим это уравнение:

Для этого перенесем 2 влево и умножим все на гамма, получаем (гамма^2-2*гамма +1 =0), это равно (гамма-1)^2=0, то есть, гамма=1.

Нужно было не думать, а просто решить.

Если нужен мой Отзыв, то вот он:

Математика - очень плохо,

физ - плохо,

Комп - очень хорошо. ;)

You are right Alexander Chepick , gamma = 1 thanks for giving me this positive note

I fixed this mistake and modify my equations; I think it is better and valid now, I understand what you mean by bad math but what you mean by bad physics؟!!!

*My paper shows that SR isn't enough or incomplete to describe motion of light if we live in 7 dimensional universe.

*My paper describes motion of light in 7 dimensions where the final result of motion of light in these dimension refer to;

1- space is absolute

2-time move to forward absolutely and to backward relatively where the final result is dilation of the elapsed time with respect to observers at rest.

as in images "yellow equations are SR equations"

I modified my video that explains the theory, thanks again, If you have any comment plz write it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBBpCQYyyQ&feature=youtu.be

Can we find a method to test "experimentally" whether there is a relation between motion and inclination or not?

I discovered the following equation that show the moving space is inclined or sloped relative to the stationary space, Now I tried to get a method or idea to test whether there is a relation or not. any suggestions?

Since Gamma=1, then from your equations is obtained t'=t. and your extra dimensions are not necessary, since all the movements are described in three spatial Cartesian coordinates and a single coordinate of constant time, as did Galileo.

But, as shown by experiments with clocks on the sputnik, the pace of time on their clock compared to a clock on the surface of the Earth depends on the gravitational potential and on the speed of the sputnik. I think else that it depends on the absolute velocity of the Earth and of the absolute speed of the satellite. In any case, the conclusion t'=t is incorrect. so you have to build a system of postulates, from which you obtain the equation t'=t/gamma, x'=x, y'=y, z'=z; but not for intervals, but for the coordinate time t in the absolute frame of reference, t' - in an inertial frame of reference moving with velocity V.

Dear, something missing here, I derived equation of "gamma+1\gamma=2" from my equations because i performed a mistake in my calculations not mistake in the source equations itself. Are you understand me, all equations in my paper or that video can't give the following equation "gamma+1\gamma=2" You can't derive this equation "gamma+1\gamma=2" from my equations, so I removed this mistake

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMBBpCQYyyQ

you can't consider that gamma=1 as

gamma+1\gamma > 2

simply, the roundoff error makes me think that γ+1\γ=2

gamma+1\gamma>2 as the image show

Well! Gamma+1/Gamma>2

Next question:

Where did you get your initial equations t'=t/Gamma, and x'=Gamma*(x-Vt), and what are all the variables? Is it postulates for constant V? But if V is a variable how will run your formula and what is Gamma?

---

Хорошо! Gamma+1/Gamma>2

Следующий вопрос:

Откуда взялись ваши начальные уравнения t'=t/Gamma и x'=Gamma*(x-Vt), и что означают все переменные? Это постулаты для постоянной V? А если V - переменная, будут ли выполняться ваши формулы и какой будет Gamma?