Preaface:

I'm not a physicist. It's my fault. I became a M.Sc. Electrical Engineer and currently working as a Senior SW Engineer. 

I first met with General Relativity in 1989 and found it exciting. But I started to deal with it only in 1999, when I realized that my view of Gravitation and Particle Physics is uniform and consistent.

Mission 1:

After the rejection of my first article I had to admit that I have to learn a lot to describe my view properly and I started my first mission: Learn General Relativity and describe my view.

Result:

Soon I had to realize that my approach is not applicable in General Relativity. For example in case of static gravitation field the synchronized coordinate system can not be static in General Relativity. In my description it must be static.

Mission 2:

I also found that there has been a heuristic but unsuccessful effort to use General Relativity, adjust it to the newly available experiments and create the Great Unified Theory for long.
A theoretical physicist who has been working on gravitation theories for more that 20 years wrote:
"The problem is that theoretical physics as branch of science has been practically dead for last two decades after the breakthrough of super string models which turned out not to work. No-one dares say that Emperor does not have clothes."

My mission is to find why is it so hard to apply Reneral Relativity and what is the source of the difference between my model and Reneral Relativity.

Result:

I found the General Relativity contains an unjustified constraint that makes it well defined but as it is the source of non-linearity it also makes the theory hard to use.
My theory of gravitation differs from General Relativity in the definition of time. It has been evaluated by a Relativity specialist, who said:
- it is in harmony with the principles of relativity,
- it is consistent and has no internal contradiction
- it is linear (addition of mass or energy), so possibly easier to use
- it will have different predictions
- Einstein could have built his model using this approach, but he did not
- it has to be worked out to show differenes in predictions
I also found that the mathematical description I need for my theory has already been worked out almost 40 years ago. I have to define the exact rule for the uniersal transformation proposed there and reinterprete the results. This paper "Linear Relativity as a result of Unit Transformation" has already been written.

What next?

I have published my theory on www.arxiv.org (physics/0109038).

Mission 3: (2001.Okt.15.)

I created a model that is analogue to our General Relativity. It is called "Balloon Relativity". It describes how balloons woud describe their underwather world based on the same principles as GR.

The aim was to point out those limitations of GR that are based on the definition set used. It is: non-linearity, dynamism and everything that makes GR impossible to use for global solution.

Mission 4: (2002)

I was trying to point out the fundamental difference between GR and GPS. It is the same business as above, but has more weight, as GPS is widely used and respected.

Mission 5: (2003.03-)

Become Competent: Learn more about GR, GPS, Relativistic Elecrtodynamics Nuclear and Quantum Physics.

Recently (2005.01.17) I had a presentation at Eötvös Loránd University about GR and the theoretical background of GPS.

Mission 6: (2003.+)

On the basis of the alternative relativistic theories, plus the matematical description of the possible quantum particle:

a. Make physicist use the alternative theories

b. Define and introduce a kind of quantum gravity

Contact: