Neutrino Speed

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I like number five because there are the five levels of nature:
1.
The tachyon gas (v >>> c)
2.
Tachyon gas transforms into the closed strings (v >> c).
3.
Neutrinos (v = 1.0000508c > c) consist of the closed strings. The size of neutrinos is close to the Planck critical length so there appears the new physics i.e. the G, c, h, e and mass of electron.
4.
Particles carrying mass consist of the binary systems of neutrinos (v = c) i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components.
5.
The objects before the soft big bangs suited to life (speed of such objects in relation to the Einstein spacetime before the soft big bang is v = 0). They consist of baryons.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Does anyone else notice how Sylwester won't answer any direct questions and won't respond when asked to justify his claims?

 

[Dywyddyr]

Does anyone else notice how Sylwester won't answer any direct questions and won't respond when asked to justify his claims?

Isn't that standard crank procedure?
I think it's in the manual they get issued.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Decades go by, big accelerators are built up, tremendous number of new results show that we must radically change our vision of nature (especially of the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime) whereas above mentioned physicists do not see that the old big problems still a not solved.

You're simply denying reality.

Firstly the SM has been amazingly successful in its description of particle physics phenomena. To claim otherwise is to simply deny reality. Secondly, particle physicists do not deny there are still things which must be addressed. I went to many talks during my PhD where people talked about things such as the CP problem or what happens if the Higgs isn't found or how to explain dark matter or how to test GUT models without building an accelerator the size of the solar system. These are common points of discussion in the physics community, the only people who claim they aren't are hacks who try to further their own agendas by LYING.

For you and others it is still not obvious that there are not in existence following particles:
Higgs boson(s) (inertial mass is the more fundamental physical quantity than a pure energy so the Higgs mechanism is not in existence)
Gravitons (gravity acts in different way but accordingly with the Einstein gravity; the gravitational constant G depends on the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime components i.e. on the binary systems of neutrinos)
S-particles (fermion-boson symmetry postulated within supersymmetry is not in existence; just, fermion-boson symmetry follows from the fact that there are fermions and fermion-antifermion pairs; for example, there are neutrinos (fermions) and binary systems of neutrinos (bosons)
Other –inos

Like I said, there are regular discussions, talks, even entire conference series where questions like "What happens if the Higgs isn't found?" are brought up. I myself coauthored a paper which discussed an alternative to the Higgs mechanism in providing mass to QFT Lagrangians. The SM and any extensions say nothing about gravitons, so that's a non-starter. As for SUSY there are non-SUSY ideas for dark matter, and not everyone in the particle physics community expects it will be found. You make it sound like everyone has the same opinion and absolute confidence in it, that simply isn't the case.

You aren't in the physics research community, you have never been in the research community, you don't read publications, I don't believe you would even understand them if you did. Why do you think you're in any position to tell me, someone who has worked in precisely this area and has published work in it, what I am thinking?

Today for me is obvious that neutrinos should move with speeds higher than the c because the Einstein spacetime components, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos which carry the photons and gluons, are the more massive particles which are moving with the speed c. This also shows that we must change the outlook upon the Einstein spacetime.

You have less evidence for your neutrino models (and previously I've ascertained from you that your 'neutrinos' aren't the SM neutrinos, so your use of that word is erroneous too) than SM has for the Higgs.

Now one knows what the dark energy is. I claim that it is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that the dark energy appeared due to the decay of the object before the soft big bang after the era of inflation. The Everlasting Theory shows that the all particles greater than the neutrinos are composed of the Einstein spacetime components (i.e. of the binary systems of neutrinos which move with the speed c).

You can claim elves fly out your backside, got anything more than vapid claims you pull from said elf residence?

You compare my Everlasting Theory with the QCD but you do not take into account that the QCD have big problems to calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks, experimentalists cannot find the Higgs boson(s), and so on. For me it is obvious that free neutrinos must move with speed higher than the c because this follows from my theory and the central value of such speed obtained in the experiments is consistent with my theory.

QCD has been enormously successful. Your work has failed at every turn. Just in this thread I've pointed out contradictions with reality your claims have.

You are obsessed with masses. Deducing masses is a tiny part of particle physics. All the stuff with Feynman diagrams is about computing scattering cross sections and decay widths and energy scalings. You can't do any of that. None of your work ever comes out to be a formula for anything, it's always just a number. You're demonstrating how weak your mathematics and physics understanding is, just like most hacks. Can't you handle even basic calculus?

You compare my math with the applied in the QCD. You do not understand that most important are initial conditions. You do not understand that math associated with my initial conditions shows that the eight gluons lead to conclusion that the Einstein spacetime consists of the exact 4 different binary systems of neutrinos. The 8 gluons prove also that the Einstein spacetime consists of only two families of neutrinos so in the ‘oscillations’ we should not observe the tau neutrinos. My theory leads to conclusion that the colours are associated with the internal helicities. The binary systems of the neutrinos have 3 helicities which we can write as 3=2+1. The 2 different helicities of the 2 neutrinos and the 2 different weak charges of neutrinos lead to the 4 different non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. This is because each binary system must contain one positive weak charge and one negative weak charge (see page 49 in my book). Whereas the 1 is associated with the helicity of the binary system as a whole i.e. it leads to the 2 states (left and right). Can you now see that 4*2=8 gluons whereas 1*2=2 photons?
Once more: The 8 gluons and 2 photons lead to the two families of neutrinos in the Einstein spacetime!!!!! Existence of the tau neutrino follows from the wrong interpretation of the sham oscillations. There are not the oscillations of the neutrinos - there are the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of the neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of. The exchanges change the energies of neutrinos what suggests that there is in existence more families of neutrinos. The Everlasting Theory shows that there is only one colour and one anticolour of my sham quarks and such model leads to the correct spins of all particles.

Doesn't matter how you arrive at your number of gluons and photons, the fact remains your work contradicts observation.

Once more: You cannot compare my math with the applied in the QCD.

You have no math. Seriously, I haven't seen you do any mathematics beyond the understanding of a teenager. Do you know any calculus? Your mathematics is laughable. You've spent too much time teaching primary school kids, you've forgotten (if you ever knew) what actual mathematical physics is like. So I suppose you are right, I can't compare your math with that of QCD, QCD actually has some.

The ‘both’ maths lead to the same theoretical results.

Obviously not, as I just explained with the number of gluons and photons. Is that fact 8 is not equal to 16 too much for you to follow? Perhaps you should ask one of the primary school children you've taught, they'll know better than you.

BTW: Can you calculate the physical constants (G, c, h, e, mass of electron) within the mainstream theories?

No, but neither can you, you know the answers you want and you fix it. I remember when I had to tell you how the fine structure constant isn't constant, after you magically claimed to get it right. You didn't realise the coupling changes. Then magically, after I explained it to you, you claimed your work explained that too. Your 'everlasting theory' got changed.

Can you compute anything which isn't a number? A differential cross section? A decay width? Look in a particle physics textbook and you'll see what these things are. You might even realise just how far short of anything viable you fall.

In the extended version of my book (it will be soon on my website), I derived, for example, following function: the cross section for production of the W boson as function of collision energy.

I can already predict a simple qualitative reason why you'll get that wrong, but I'll wait to see what you say.

The math applied in my theory is very simple because I start from the correct initial conditions (seven parameters only!!!!). The Everlasting Theory shows that we can eliminate the renormalization also.
You still write the nonsense about my theory because you did not read it.

Your maths is very simple because you don't know anything complicated. It's like Motor Daddy whining about special relativity but he can't actually do a Lorentz transform or DRZion whining about QED when he can't do quantum mechanics or fluid mechanics but he can't understand Navier-Stokes equations.

Sylwester, why are you still peddling your work on forums? Why hasn't a journal published it? Something which rewrites the SM would propel a journal into the stratosphere, it would make them a huge amount of money, so you can't use the excuse "They are afraid of new ideas". If I proved the SM wrong it would make my career, it would make anyone's career. Why are you still peddling your crap and whining on forums? Like Farsight. Like Magneto. Like all the other hacks here.

Because you're a huge failure at physics.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, do you really think that readers do not see the manner you ‘discuss? You claim that my theoretical results (hundreds) are not consistent with experimental data whereas there is no example. All can see on my website my simple calculations and the tables with the results consistent with experimental data. They are much better than the obtained within the SM, especially the QCD. My results are also better than the obtained within the QED. For example, I obtained applying very simple calculations following results:
Electron magnetic moment in the Bohr magneton (see formula (69)):
1.0011596521735
Muon magnetic moment in the muon magneton (see formula (142)):
1.001165921508
Frequency of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state (see formula (149)):
1420.434 MHz
Lamb-Retherford shift – I calculated it in two different ways (see formulae (154) and (156):
1058.05 MHz and 1057.84 MHz.
Why my calculations are very simple whereas the within the QED are very complicated? Why I obtained better results without the perturbation theory and renormalization? There are two methods to obtain the correct results. In contrary to my Everlasting Theory, the QED neglects following facts: that the Einstein spacetime consist from the binary systems of neutrinos, that the dark energy is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that the electron consists of the binary systems of neutrinos so the electron interacts with the Einstein spacetime also weakly. When we take into account the weak interactions then we can reduce the big number of the diagrams in the QED to one only. Of course, both methods are equivalent because the term in my theory which describes the weak interactions of the virtual electron-positron pairs with the real electron is equal to the sum of the all left diagrams in the QED which describe the electromagnetic interactions. This follows from my very simple electroweak theory.
Recapitulation
You do not discuss. Mostly there are the invectives and there are not samples from my book to show where my simple calculations are incorrect or which theoretical results are inconsistent with experimental data. You are too lazy to read my theory or you know that you are not right. I suppose that my scientific arguments (for example, the above) make you nervous because they show the weak points in the mainstream theories. My calculations are much simpler and give better results starting from only seven parameters. The last your post on Phys.Org in my thread titled “Liquid-like Plasma” suggests that you banned me for over five years or forced it. Is it true? Is it the way you eliminate posters who think about nature in different way?

In your last post, there is no place to discuss in scientific manner.

Firstly the SM has been amazingly successful in its description of particle physics phenomena….

My theory has been much more amazingly successful, starts from 7 parameters only (the SM from 20 at least), is much simpler and solves problems the SM cannot. Satisfied?

….you don't read publications….

See the first post in this thread and the references in my book. Satisfied?

You have less evidence for your neutrino models (and previously I've ascertained from you that your 'neutrinos' aren't the SM neutrinos, so your use of that word is erroneous too) than SM has for the Higgs.

My neutrinos are the neutrinos which are moving with the speed a little higher than the c i.e. v=1.0000508c i.e. they are the neutrinos measured in the MINOS experiments. Satisfied?

QCD has been enormously successful. Your work has failed at every turn.

Some example, please (from my book). I claim that you are a liar.

You are obsessed with masses. Deducing masses is a tiny part of particle physics. All the stuff with Feynman diagrams is about computing scattering cross sections and decay widths and energy scalings.

In my book, there are many curves on base of the functions (soon will be more). See, for example, how I obtained the asymptote alpha_strong = 0.1139 for the high energies. My QED is simpler because I take into account the dark energy and the weak interactions. The both descriptions are equivalent but my QED gives better theoretical results. Readers can see it in my book so you are a liar.

Doesn't matter how you arrive at your number of gluons and photons, the fact remains your work contradicts observation….

Which observation? You are a liar.

You have no math. Seriously,…..

No math leads to the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data? NATURE IS SIMPLE so calculations should be simple. Calculations are very complicated when we start from WRONG INITIAL CONDITIONS. The initial conditions applied in the SM are partially incorrect. I many times wrote which assumptions are incorrect. For example, neutrinos are not moving with the speed c, masses of the up and down quarks are wrong (what is the exact their mass?; the Everlasting Theory shows that their masses are much greater) or we cannot neglect the weak interactions with the dark energy, and so on.

I remember when I had to tell you how the fine structure constant isn't constant, after you magically claimed to get it right. …

On the beginning of my work, I calculated the alpha_strong for the low energies (for baryons 14.4, for mesons 1). It was before I started ‘discussion’ with you. We can verify it because in Internet are the earlier versions of my theory, also in Polish libraries (first edition in 1997). It is true that you wrote about the running couplings but your words have nothing with my calculations of my running constants. My model differs radically from described within the QCD. Over time, I develop my theory but all can see that it has nothing with your ‘discussion’. So why is there the word ‘magically’? Is it your next a dirty trick?

Your maths is very simple because you don't know anything complicated.

It is because nature is simple and the initial conditions applied in the SM are partially wrong. Scientists neglect elements which they do not understand. For example, they do not understand the dark energy and the weak interactions of it with all known particles. This causes that the electroweak theory is incorrect.

All can see that in your posts dominate the invectives and the lies concerning my book. All can read it so they know that you are a liar and unreliable man.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, do you really think that readers do not see the manner you ‘discuss?

I like how you ask that question after I asked you if you think no one notices you ignore direct questions. I reply to all your posts, you ignore the bits of mine you can't address.

You claim that my theoretical results (hundreds) are not consistent with experimental data whereas there is no example.

I have given one in this thread, your count of gluons and photons. They are inconsistent with observations.

All can see on my website my simple calculations and the tables with the results consistent with experimental data.

Numerology is easy. It's easy to fit a simple formula to a few data points. Coming up with a single coherent formalism which does more than predict a few discrete data points is more difficult.

They are much better than the obtained within the SM, especially the QCD.

You have repeatedly demonstrated you don't even know what QCD says.

In contrary to my Everlasting Theory, the QED neglects following facts: that the Einstein spacetime consist from the binary systems of neutrinos, that the dark energy is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that the electron consists of the binary systems of neutrinos so the electron interacts with the Einstein spacetime also weakly.

In other words any model which isn't your model isn't right because it isn't your model.

Are you familiar with the notion of circular logic?

You have no evidence for your neutrino based models. And the objects aren't even neutrinos, you are misusing the word.

You are too lazy to read my theory or you know that you are not right.

Actually I spend between 1 and 5 hours a day reading papers and textbooks. The problem is that I have to read certain things in order to do my job. Devoting serious time to your nonsense is not going to put a roof over my head. It obviously doesn't put a roof over yours either.

Speaking of which, what is your job at the moment? Your CV is blank from about 10 years ago.

I suppose that my scientific arguments (for example, the above) make you nervous because they show the weak points in the mainstream theories.

I am willing to bet actual money if you submitted your work to a reputable journal, like JHEP or Physics Review, it would be rejected.

The last your post on Phys.Org in my thread titled “Liquid-like Plasma” suggests that you banned me for over five years or forced it. Is it true? Is it the way you eliminate posters who think about nature in different way?

I am not nor have I ever been a moderator on PhysOrg. I have never had any influence over whoever does have ban powers on PhysOrg. You're inventing, without any evidence, a conspiracy against you. I hate to break it to you but you got banned because even for PhysOrg you were a hack. And since then you've accomplished nothing.

What are you doing, other than posting on forums, to get your work taken seriously by the research community?

My theory has been much more amazingly successful, starts from 7 parameters only (the SM from 20 at least), is much simpler and solves problems the SM cannot. Satisfied?

You can't even provide scattering cross sections, all you do is provide a list of numbers and those are pulled from formula you curve fit. Your work isn't successful by any definition.

See the first post in this thread and the references in my book. Satisfied?

And yet you misrepresent QCD and mainstream physics in general. So either you don't read the literature and you're ignorant or you do and you lie. For instance, in your work you say the following :

"My theory identifies where mainstream theories are inconsistent with experimental data:
1.
There is an asymptote for the running coupling for strong interactions of the colliding
nucleons – the value of it equals 0.1139. This is inconsistent with the asymptotic freedom for energies which are higher than a few hundred GeV and the curve for energy ends at
approximately 18 TeV – this is due to the internal structure of the cores of baryons."

All observations for the running of the strong coupling match SM predictions. Energies beyond around 100GeV haven't been measured, so what you actually mean is your prediction differs from the SM. That is not the same as being inconsistent with experimental data. That is a misrepresentation. So the question is whether you're ignorant and don't understand your mistake or you do understand it and you're deliberately dishonest.

My neutrinos are the neutrinos which are moving with the speed a little higher than the c i.e. v=1.0000508c i.e. they are the neutrinos measured in the MINOS experiments. Satisfied?

Then they aren't neutrinos. Call them something else.

Some example, please (from my book). I claim that you are a liar.

Gluon/photon count. You haven't explained that away.

In my book, there are many curves on base of the functions (soon will be more). See, for example, how I obtained the asymptote alpha_strong = 0.1139 for the high energies.

You mean around page 29 of your pdf? It's laughable. You use the simplest expressions from relativity, not realising you're not using Lorentz transforms properly. Your work doesn't present any kind of Lorentz invariance, it doesn't even use vectors. Everything is high school level and "Here's a coupling of unknowns, let's curve fit!". Basic linear regression, when you don't have the correct generation of the model, is often extremely unreliable and cannot be trusted much beyond the extremal observed values.

Furthermore the series of disjoint sections you have for the strong coupling on page 29 doesn't reflect the true observed running of the system.


My QED is simpler because I take into account the dark energy and the weak interactions. The both descriptions are equivalent but my QED gives better theoretical results. Readers can see it in my book so you are a liar.

Which observation? You are a liar.

We can count the number of gluons and photons. The observed number disagrees with your claims.

I'll skip the rest of your post to cover a point I've previously explained to you but you obviously didn't get. All of the data you see in the literature about the value of $$\alpha_{s}$$ or cross sections or rest masses of quarks etc is on the assumption of the Standard Model. The raw observational data must be processed, interpreted, by a model and checked for consistency. That model then makes other predictions which are tested.

You claim the SM is utterly wrong, thus all of the values of things like $$\alpha_{s}$$ found in the literature cannot be trusted. Instead if you wish to replace the SM with your work you need to process the raw experimental data yourself. Saying "The SM is wrong!" and also "My model predicts the observed values of $$\alpha_{s}$$!" is inconsistent, as $$\alpha_{s}$$ isn't 'observed' directly, it's something you compute from the data using a model, in this case the Standard Model. You are simultaneously saying "I don't trust the SM" and "My predictions for this output of the SM are right!". Things like $$\alpha_{s}$$ and up/down quark masses are not directly observable, you have to infer their values from other processes.

You never understood this so perhaps an example will help. For instance, suppose you do 2 experiments and get the answers A=3 and B=6, but you're really interested in values X and Y. Suppose the Standard Model says that A=2X+Y and B=X-Y. With some high school maths it follows that X = 3 and Y = -3. But what if you thought that actually A = X+Y and B=X-Y? Then you'd get that X = 4.5 and B = -1.5, different answers because your model of how X and Y relate to A and B is different. You claim the SM is wrong but you're using it to get your values of $$\alpha_{s}$$, which you're using to claim you're right. It's all completely self contradictory. You have to apply your work to the observed data, not the inferred data.

This, more than anything, kills your work. If you claim to match anything which implicitly assumes the SM then you've contradicted yourself, unless you explicitly demonstrate the SM is in agreement with your work in regards to processing the observations.

Once again, check ****in' mate.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

In my theory, there are the 8 types of gluons. The strong field has internal helicity, for example, neutron has the left. This means that the left-handed, as a whole, gluon behaves in different way in strong field than the right. Due you understand it? In electromagnetic field the left- and right-handed photons behave the same because internal helicity of the electromagnetic field is equal to zero.

It is disheartening.
No more comments.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

In my theory, there are the 8 types of gluons. The strong field has internal helicity, for example, neutron has the left. This means that the left-handed, as a whole, gluon behaves in different way in strong field than the right. Due you understand it? In electromagnetic field the left- and right-handed photons behave the same because internal helicity of the electromagnetic field is equal to zero.

You demonstrate you don't understand helicity.

Both the strong and electromagnetic forces deal with helicity and chirality in the same manner. For massless particles helicity and chirality are the same and both the photon and gluon has the same helicity structures. Furthermore they both preserve P symmetry. The spin structures of the neutron and proton are the same as the electron, spin 1/2 particles with mass. It is the weak force which violates such things, having a preference for one handedness over the other.

This is seen in the electroweak Lagrangian, compared to the QED or QCD Lagrangian, where the chiral $$\gamma^{5}$$ operator appears. But obviously you never learnt even the most basic relevant physics before making claims.

By observations (and explained by gauge group structures in the Standard Model) there are 8 different gluons and 1 type of photon. Each of these, both gluons and photons, have 2 polarisation modes and both can have left or right helicity (which is the same as chirality as they are all massless). Both of them are 'handed-blind', they treat left handed and right handed processes the same. This is what experiments tell us, no violation in the QED or QCD sector has been seen and that's inline with the SM.

If you count the 1 type of photon twice due to helicities then you should count the 8 types of gluons twice. If you only count the 8 types of gluons once then you should count the 1 type of photon once. Else you're being inconsistent with observations.

I don't care what your theory says about the origins, if that's what you say then you contradict observation.

It is disheartening.

Yes, it is disheartening that despite the fact you've been spending at least a decade thinking about, writing and peddling this crap you haven't learnt what would be considered assumed knowledge for someone working in QED, electroweak or QCD research. The basic Lagrangians of QED, EW and QCD are on Wikipedia. They are done to death in common textbooks like Peskon & Schroder. Every aspect of them is discussed, including things like parities, symmetry breaking, invariances etc. Even the unanswered questions are discussed. And yet despite you claiming to keep up to date with this stuff, despite you claiming you understand it, despite having devoted more time to this stuff than I've been learning it, you know almost nothing, even qualitative stuff.

10 years ago I was still in school and just learning differentiation. I managed to learn the necessary stuff, understand it, even research and publish some myself. You keep whining about my posts and yet every post of mine blows holes in your claims and you can't retort them. Or when you do try to retort them you only demonstrate further you don't understand.

No more comments.

I'm not surprised. I won't be in the slight bit surprised if you again fail to grasp the point I made in my last post. You simultaneously say "The SM is nonsense!" and "My theory matches outputs of the SM!". It's pretty simple logic, even the primary school kids you used to teach should be able to grasp it. Well, unless they learnt their basic reasoning skills from you.

 

[Magneto_1]

.......Like Magneto. Like all the other hacks here.

Does the King and Queen of England still have "Court Jesters?" because that is a job that you are "uniquely" qualified for!!!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Oh goody, he's back. Tired of just talking to Farsight over on physicsdiscussions?

Speaking of being qualified for jobs, hows the job hunting going? Applied for any more head of department jobs recently?

Submitted your work for journal review yet? Months ago you said you were ready so I assume you've done it, right? Maybe you and Sylwester could submit to the same journals and get both works published in the same edition? Maybe you could combine the works into "Super Everlasting Principia Mathematica"?

Learnt the difference between a metric and a vector yet? Maybe you and Sylwester could do a book study together and work through a high school level calculus book as you both need to brush up (though that assumes you learnt it in the first place).

By the way, I loved the review you gave your own book on Amazon. You talk about jesters but yours was comedy genius! It went down a treat at Slashdot. You got a similar backlash on Reddit when you linked to our 'discussion'. You thought you'd get people laughing at me but they ended up laughing at you. So it would seem the jester job is yours, not mine.

Now run along back to Farsight's forum where you can both slap each other on the back for how 'insightful' you each are and how everyone else is wrong, you wouldn't want the real world to infer with your delusions of competency.

 

[Dywyddyr]

Oh my! I just read those reviews.
I also noticed he can't even get his own CV right.
How smart is that?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

He demonstrates how unfamiliar he is with publishing, including writing an 'about the author' section by talking about himself in the first person. The 'about the author' should always be written in the style of someone else describing the author. This avoids is sounding like an ego trip, even when it's stating factual things like number of published papers (which is zero in his case). Similarly published work should always be written using 'we' rather than 'I' or 'you', ie "We now take the second derivative and...", not "I'll now take the second derivative and....".

It's strange, he writes the 'about the author' in the first person when it should be second person but then writes the review in the second person when it should be the first since he's reviewing his own book. He does that all the time, if you Google for his book you'll find lots of reviews (mostly identical copies) where he doesn't admit he's the author and tries to put across the impression he's an interested third party. He also used the services of a company which writes a good review and then plasters it about. They talk about it in the Slashdot link I think and here is an example, with the reviewer working for such a company. Best quote is "Kemp has worked on his book for over two decades, sacrificing personal comfort and financial security". It's obviously done by someone paid to write it because it describes the book as "Beyond brilliant" but anyone who knows any mathematics can see Mr Kemp doesn't.

On one of those Q&A websites he answered "Who wrote Principia" with "Robert Kemp did", again not admitting that's him.

Mr Kemp, why would you pay for someone to plaster (utterly unrealistic and dishonest) reviews of your book everyone to drum up interest? It would be cheaper, have more impact and get your work into the mainstream (if it were accepted) faster if you had just submitted your work to a journal instead. That way it would get to the notice of actual physicists, not the lay persons. After all, you believe Kip Thorne stole your work, so you obviously believe your work is good enough to have its merits obvious to physicists. A journal would love to publish ground breaking work, it makes them money. And once your work storms academia you could sell tons of your book.

But then I suppose it wouldn't make you money if your work were rejected. Skipping journals and going straight to self publishing a book is the only way to make money if you know the work is awful. It's almost like you knew it was going to be rejected by everyone.....

Anyway, this thread isn't about Mr Kemp (and for those who wonder why I keep doing that, Mr Kemp tries to insult me by calling me 'Professor' when I'm just a Dr, as if having a doctorate is embarrassing. I'm just reminding him he has neither.), it's about Mr Sylwester Kornowski's clap trap. If we want to laugh more at Super Principia Mathematica and it's hilarious marketing campaign we could start a new thread. I didn't do it when I found all that stuff because Magneto wasn't around but if he's back now we can discuss it with him. Perhaps Farsight could join in, he's taken out adverts in IoP (Institute of Physics) magazines and been on a god awful conspiracy theory TV program. He and Magneto could compare notes on how to spend money to get the physics community to ignore you.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To illustrate that Sylwester and I have been over the issue that the $$\alpha_{s}$$ values are SM dependent and thus its contradictory for him to say "Throw out the SM" and "I've matched the $$\alpha_{s}$$ values!", as well as many of the issues he still have problems with, here's some links :

Here claims SM wrong because stronger forces should have more massive force carriers. This post of his and my follow on about $$\alpha_{s}$$ and SM based observations.

Claims in January 2009 his work will be soon seen to be prophetic. The thread closes with him saying 2010 will be the time. Also says here neutrinos move at speed c. Observations say otherwise. He now claims in this very thread they can go faster. Why is the 'everlasting theory' changing?

Lista bunch of claims. One of which is no almost free quarks will be seen. Quark-gluon plasmas disprove that. Also claims dark matter is "cold Fe+Ni+Si lumps created during the era of big stars just after the big bang". Cold normal matter is not dark matter, as even if its the same temperature as the CMB it is visible due to light scattering and blocking of star light. This that claim is demonstrated false.

And that's just a tiny handful of stuff from PhysOrg, going back about 5 years. He's still where he was then, still as ignorant as ever about the SM. In 5 years most people can go from finishing high school to publishing viable research mid way through their PhD. Sylwester has managed to ...... I honestly don't know what he's managed to do in that time. He admits he had these ideas back in the early 80s. I was born in the early 80s!

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You mean around page 29 of your pdf? It's laughable. You use the simplest expressions from relativity, not realising you're not using Lorentz transforms properly.

AlphaNumeric, you do not understand what you are reading. The formula on page 29 concerns only the virtual carriers of the strong interactions i.e. the large loops and follows from the properties of the Einstein spacetime (see formulae (103)-(105)) and from the Uncertainty Principle. The virtual carriers consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. When we accelerate a proton (of course mass of the proton increases) then spin speed of the carrier/loop decreases i.e. its lifetime increases because the resultant speed must be equal to the c. From the Uncertainty Principle follows then energy of such loop decreases i.e. the alpha_strong decreases also. This means that the carrier/loop behaves in different way than the proton – mass of proton increases whereas energy of the carriers of the strong interactions decreases. We can see that when energy of collisions increases then the running coupling decreases from the 14.4 to the 0.1139. Can you see that you do not understand even my simple math?

I see that I should end this ‘discussion’. I see that my theory will be the mainstream theory when experimentalists will claim that the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos, that the dark energy is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that neutrinos are moving with the speed 1.0000508c i.e. with speed a little higher than the c. Then will be the time for gigantic changes in the SM.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, you do not understand what you are reading. The formula on page 29 concerns only the virtual carriers of the strong interactions i.e. the large loops and follows from the properties of the Einstein spacetime (see formulae (103)-(105)) and from the Uncertainty Principle. The virtual carriers consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. When we accelerate a proton (of course mass of the proton increases) then spin speed of the carrier/loop decreases i.e. its lifetime increases because the resultant speed must be equal to the c. From the Uncertainty Principle follows then energy of such loop decreases i.e. the alpha_strong decreases also. This means that the carrier/loop behaves in different way than the proton – mass of proton increases whereas energy of the carriers of the strong interactions decreases. We can see that when energy of collisions increases then the running coupling decreases from the 14.4 to the 0.1139. Can you see that you do not understand even my simple math?

I love how you accuse me of not understanding your maths but your response to what I said (which was a criticism of your mathematics) didn't address what I actually said.

I was criticising that your claims of some kind of Lorentz invariant construction were unjustified. All you'd done is just use the $$\gamma$$ factor. That's a classic sign someone hasn't learnt much relativity. It's the level of a 1st course in SR, before full vector calculus/linear algebra versions of Lorentz (and any other Hilbert space symmetries) are introduced to a student. Even when doing it component by component, expanding everything out, and restricting yourself to just 1+1 dimensional approaches Lorentz transforms are more general than that, as there's an offset in the general transform. More specifically, $$t' = t'(t,x)$$ and $$x' = x'(t,x)$$, not just $$t' = t'(t)$$ and $$x' = x'(x)$$. It's like working with $$E=mc^{2}$$ only, something your pdf does in abundance. True Lorentz invariance requires you to use $$E^{2} = (mc^{2})^{2} + |\mathbf{p}c|^{2}$$, $$E=mc^{2}$$ only applies in 1 frame, the objects rest frame, ie when $$\mathbf{p}=0$$.

It's funny you complain I don't understand your mathematics when the whole point of my criticism was that I do understand Lorentz invariance (I find generalised inner product symmetries in Hilbert spaces quite interesting actually) and I can see you do not. The fact your response didn't even address that shows either you don't understand your mistake or you do but you don't have a retort but you feel you must still say something.

I'm willing to discuss it with you. Why don't you lay out how your work has Lorentz invariance, in explicit detail. At the very least point to specific parts of your pdf where you demonstrate it and we can go from there.

Having just looked through your pdf again I've seen something I forgot you did, your obsession with the Taylor expansion of $$e^{x}$$. For anyone who wants to see numerology at its best (by which I mean 'worst' in terms of science) check out the chapter called 'Mathematical Constants'. Starts on page 78 in the pdf. An example subtitle is "π=3.1415... also proves that the Everlasting Theory is correct".

Seriously.

I see that I should end this ‘discussion’. I see that my theory will be the mainstream theory when experimentalists will claim that the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos, that the dark energy is the thickened Einstein spacetime and that neutrinos are moving with the speed 1.0000508c i.e. with speed a little higher than the c. Then will be the time for gigantic changes in the SM.

As I just demonstrated, you were saying that 2.5 years ago, saying it was going to happen last year. I'll say to you now what I said then, it's always just around the corner isn't it? Just like it's been just around the corner since the early 80s. In that time LEP, LEPII, Fermilab and now the LHC have developed and confirmed our understanding of particle physics, particularly QCD.

Maybe you should go over to physicsdiscussions, Farsight and Magneto are there. Farsight says the same as you, that one day people like me will be teaching his work. Maybe you and he can argue over what I might one day be teaching

/edit

And here is the thread where you altered your claims to include running couplings, after I had to explain to you why they aren't actually constants. If I'm lucky I'll manage to find the actual thread where I taught you that. Once again, why does your everlasting theory keep changing? I point out your results are SM dependent there too.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

To illustrate my point about how you don't just flick a switch at the LHC and get a read out for $$\alpha_{s}$$, that you have to use your model to interpret the data here is one of the more recent experimental papers on precisely that. It's a huge collaboration which takes all the raw data like trajectories, magnetic field strengths, beam power, luminosity, transverse momenta, jet angles etc and churn it down into a value for $$\alpha_{s}(M_{Z})$$.

Section 4.2 explains it : "The QCD predictions for jet production depend on αs and on the parton density functions of the proton. The strong coupling αs is determined from the measured normalised jet cross sections using the parton density functions from global analyses, which include inclusive deep-inelastic scattering and other data. The determination is performed from individual observables and also from their combination. "

The processing assumes the SM and the model is validated if the processed observations are consistent with the predictions based on the known setup of the accelerator experiment. However, if you change your model, throwing out the SM, then you have to work with the raw data, not the value of $$\alpha_{s}(M_{Z})$$ this paper produces at the end. Likewise with all other non-directly observable things such as the fine structure constant, up and down quark masses and decay widths.

Sylwester, this is the nail in your work's coffin. No matter how much you scream about "It's only got 7 parameters!!" and "It's simple!!" you've contradicted yourself and unless you work directly with the raw data you'll never get around that.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

This means that my result 0.1139 is consistent with the data.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Neutrino Speed in the Everlasting Theory

Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. Here, within the Everlasting Theory (the ET), I present the physical interpretation and math concerning the results obtained in the MINOS and LHC-OPERA experiments and relating to the supernova SN 1987 A. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the LHC-OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c.

The Einstein spacetime, i.e. the gas composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos, behaves as almost ideal gas so the neutrinos from the weak decays also. We should observe a broadening in the spectrum of the neutrino speed. From formula presented in my first post in this thread follows that speed of neutrinos depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions with nucleons. The ET shows that square root from a lifetime is inversely proportional to increase in speed in relation to the c (see the first post). This means that lifetime increases by a half when an increase of neutrino speed in relation to the speed of photons increases by sqrt(2). To obtain the maximum speed of neutrinos, we will multiply the central value by the sqrt(2).
For lower energies, such as in the MINOS experiment, there are mostly the neutrinos from the decays of muons. The ratio of the lifetime of neutron to lifetime of muon is smallest (see the first post)
Sqrt(lifetime-neutron/lifetime-muon) = v/(v-c) = 20,000
so obtained neutrino speed is the upper limit. From the first post and the sqrt(2) follows that for the more precise MINOS experiment, for the neutrino speed we should obtain 1.000051(21)c i.e. the maximum neutrino speed should be 1.000072c.
For higher energies, such as in the LHC-OPERA experiment, there are mostly the neutrinos from the weak decays of the relativistic charged pion-antipion pairs produced in the d=2 state (the mass of such relativistic pion is 181.704 MeV) i.e. in the ground state above the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions. The Everlasting Theory shows that lifetime is inversely proportional to four powers of mass. This is the conclusion from the theory of stars. This means that lifetime of the relativistic charged pion in the d=2 state which decays due to the weak interactions at once into 3 neutrinos and electron, is 8.74 times shorter than lifetime of muon. This leads to conclusion that the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. the maximum speed is 1.0000243c so the time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams is 59.3 ns.
For highest energies, such as in the explosions of the neutron cores of supernovae, dominate the neutrinos from the decays of the W boson-antiboson pairs produced near the point mass in the core of baryons. The distance of mass between the point mass and the torus in the core of baryons is equal to the mass of muon whereas the mass of the point mass , which is responsible for the weak interactions of baryons, is 4 times greater than the muon. The four neutrino symmetry (the eight gluons lead to two families of neutrinos only) shows that creation of systems containing 4 elements is preferred. This means that the lifetime of the muon is characteristic also for the point mass (i.e.424 MeV = 4*105.7 MeV – each one of the four muons lives 2.2*10^-6 s). This leads to conclusion that lifetime of the W bosons which decay due to the weak interactions is
2.2*10^-6 s/(80,000/424)^4 = 1.74*10^-15 s.
This leads to following neutrino speed 1.0000000014(6)c i.e. maximum speed is 1.000000002c. The time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, measured on the Earth for the SN 1987A, should be
168,000 ly*365 days*24 hours*0.000000002 = 3 hours.
If before the explosion mass of the SN 1987A was close but greater than four masses of the Type Ia supernovae, i.e. greater than 5.6 times the mass of the sun, then due to the four-neutrino symmetry, during the gravitational collapse, there could arise the system containing 4 the Type Ia supernovae. After simultaneous explosion of the 4 supernovae, we should not observe there a remnant i.e. neutron core.

Summary
Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The MINOS and LHC-OPERA experiments and data concerning the supernova SN 1987A, lead to the Everlasting Theory i.e. to the atom-like structure of baryons, to my electroweak theory and to two families of neutrinos only. In MINOS dominated neutrinos from decays of muons, in LHC-OPERA neutrinos from decays of the relativistic charged pions whereas in the supernova SN 1987A explosion, the neutrinos from the decays of the W bosons.

 

[wlminex]

. . . . wanna get me into deep doo-doo, as well? . . . .

Link: https://sites.google.com/site/eemuhypothesis/

 

[AlphaNumeric]

This means that my result 0.1139 is consistent with the data.

You obviously failed to understand anything I've said.

The value 0.1139 depends on the Standard Model. You cannot simultaneously say "The SM is nonsense" and "My model predicts the right value of $$\alpha_{S}$$, 0.1139!". The former means the value 0.1139 is not somehow a model-less physical parameter.

Until you can demonstrate 0.1139 is the value consistent with raw experimental data using your model your endless repetition will get you nowhere. You've had years to address and consider this and you've failed.