Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

....Dark energy research may be a poor choice in that it is still speculative, but I am not seeing a strong case that the Nobel committee is far off course overall.

The two biggest wrong conclusions within the mainstream theories caused by the wrong initial conditions are as follows:
1.
That the Universe quite unexpectedly can accelerate its expansion.
2.
That neutrinos, which carry the mass, cannot move with speeds higher than the massless photons and gluons i.e. than the c.

The correct conclusions are as follows:
1.
The dark energy is the a little compressed gas composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (they are moving with the speed c) i.e. the little compressed Einstein spacetime. The compression was due to the collapse of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang after the era of inflation. Such expansion is smooth whereas the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe is due to the neglected phenomena. A quite unexpected acceleration is impossible.
2.
The Special Relativity concerns the objects composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not the neutrinos. When relativistic speed is equal to the c then spin speeds are equal to zero. Since there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin then there are the tremendous inflows of the binary systems of neutrinos, i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components, into the relativistic object. We can say that there is collapse of the Einstein spacetime. This causes that mass of such relativistic object should be infinite. Moreover, the electromagnetism is directly associated with the Einstein spacetime whereas the gravity only indirectly. Due to the internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos, they can produce the transverse waves only, i.e. in the Einstein spacetime the gravitational waves and gravitons cannot appear. Gravity is directly associated with the Newtonian spacetime (see the ET – there are the two spacetimes) whereas the gravitational constant G follows from the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Newtonian spacetime.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Due to the protuberances, we see the cosmic objects for which the redshift is higher than 1. But the Everlasting Theory shows that the Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos which are the carriers of the photons and gluons. There are more the gluons (8) than photons (1 – there are the left- and right-handed photons, i.e. 2 photons, but they behave the same) because the strong field and the carriers have the internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not.

Still repeating demonstrably false things. Well, I suppose you've been doing it for 20+ years, why stop now?

And to refer to your assertions in the semi-third person by its name rather than just saying 'my hypothesis' is a little dishonest. Particularly because the name you've given it is 'The Everlasting Theory', an arrogantly delusional name if ever there was one (except perhaps compared to 'Super Principia Mathematica' by Magneto).

And it's funny you talk about wrong initial conditions and conclusions given the fundamental contradiction in your work, dismissing the SM as nonsense while claiming you've correctly predicted one of its parameters, whose experimental value is dependent upon the SM!

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, your ‘discussion’ is not logic. Can you for a moment leave behind my Everlasting Theory?
Now, my questions are as follows:
1.
Can we explain TODAY theoretically the ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe? No. This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’.
2.
Can you explain theoretically within the SM the data obtained in the OPERA experiment? No. This means that the SM at least is incomplete but there is very high certainty that we will have to reject many fragments of this theory.
3.
Can you calculate the exact mass of the up and down quarks within the QCD? No. You know, nature does not need computers to know how it shall behave. This suggests that the QCD is partially incorrect.
4.
This is obvious that ultimate theory must lead to the all postulates applied in the SM and gravity and the initial conditions must lead to the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics. Can you do it within the SM? No.
And so on…..

Your knowledge is the encyclopaedic knowledge. We can find it in the thousands different places in Internet. You did not present at least one own idea to solve at least one basic unsolved problem.

And now, a few sentences about my Everlasting Theory. My theory solves all basic unsolved problems. There are only 7 parameters. There are calculated the physical constants. I predicted that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – I began the thread “Neutrino Speed” on September 12, 2011 i.e. 11 days before the data from the OPERA experiment appeared in Internet. Within the ET I proved that there are in existence the 8 gluons and SHAM quarks Most of their properties differ from the properties of the quarks but the calculated masses of the 4 heaviest sham quarks are the same as the s, c, b and t quarks. Moreover, I showed that the quarks are not the ‘stars’. Most important is the atom-like structure of baryons and the gluon loops and gluon balls which masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. The atom-like structure of proton leads to the Feigenbaum constant 4.669… applied in the theory of chaos. You know, internal structure of particles should lead to the theory of chaos. And so on…

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Can we explain TODAY theoretically the ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe? No. This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’.

So if we cannot provide a model for something it doesn't exist? So the Sun didn't exist until we understood nuclear fusion? The Earth didn't go around the Sun until Newton 'invented' gravity? Gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand quantum gravity?

Observing something doesn't require you understand it. After all, you observe things you don't understand all the time.

Can you explain theoretically within the SM the data obtained in the OPERA experiment? No. This means that the SM at least is incomplete but there is very high certainty that we will have to reject many fragments of this theory.

The SM is very complicated, not all of its implications and properties have been worked out, particularly in the area of neutrino physics. The SM may well explain it, just people haven't gotten around to computing all the relevant processes yet.

For example, a lot of work was put into calculating proton related scattering processes in the last 10 years because it was relevant to the LHC. Before that people hadn't fully explored that part of the SM and computed what the SM said about such things.

Simply writing down the Lagrangian doesn't mean you know everything about a system. It's easy to write down a gravitational Lagrangian but it took 200 years for someone to show 3 bodies behave chaotically.

Can you calculate the exact mass of the up and down quarks within the QCD? No. You know, nature does not need computers to know how it shall behave. This suggests that the QCD is partially incorrect.

We can't calculate them yet. Non-perturbative mathematics is not very well understood. This is another example of an unexplored area of the SM.

And of course Nature doesn't need a computer, so what? That's a stupid criticism.

This is obvious that ultimate theory must lead to the all postulates applied in the SM and gravity and the initial conditions must lead to the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics. Can you do it within the SM? No.
And so on…..

Where did I say the SM was the last word in theoretical physics? You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that. Great strawman. Maybe one day you'll come up with something relevant.

Your knowledge is the encyclopaedic knowledge. We can find it in the thousands different places in Internet. You did not present at least one own idea to solve at least one basic unsolved problem.

And now, a few sentences about my Everlasting Theory. My theory solves all basic unsolved problems.

Except your delusions.

There are calculated the physical constants.

http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/measuring-coupling-strengths/

I predicted that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – I began the thread “Neutrino Speed” on September 12, 2011 i.e. 11 days before the data from the OPERA experiment appeared in Internet. Within the ET I proved that there are in existence the 8 gluons and SHAM quarks Most of their properties differ from the properties of the quarks but the calculated masses of the 4 heaviest sham quarks are the same as the s, c, b and t quarks. Moreover, I showed that the quarks are not the ‘stars’. Most important is the atom-like structure of baryons and the gluon loops and gluon balls which masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. The atom-like structure of proton leads to the Feigenbaum constant 4.669… applied in the theory of chaos. You know, internal structure of particles should lead to the theory of chaos. And so on…

Good old numerology, the cranks mathematics.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You can write only the obvious things. So once more: AlphaNumeric, your ‘discussion’ is not logic and not essential. And now I will prove it.

So if we cannot provide a model for something it doesn't exist?.....

As all can see, I wrote: “….This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’”. This means that the ‘acceleration’ CAN BE in existence or CAN BE NOT. My theory proves that the ‘can be not’ is correct.

Observing something doesn't require you understand it. After all, you observe things you don't understand all the time.

But never was the Nobel Prize for such ‘discoveries’ i.e. for a discovery type maybe or maybe not.

We can't calculate them yet. Non-perturbative mathematics is not very well understood. This is another example of an unexplored area of the SM.

Non-perturbative mathematics is very well understood for people who read my electronic book
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

Where did I say the SM was the last word in theoretical physics?

Most funny is the fact that my theory solves the all unsolved problems within the SM but people as you try to change the fruitless SM. Within the SM initial conditions we never will explain why neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c (BTW: maximum neutrino speed calculated within the Everlasting Theory is 1.000072c).

Good old numerology, the cranks mathematics.

Can you prove it? Can you prove that there are more than the 7 parameters only? Can you prove that the hundreds theoretical results are not consistent with experimental data? Can you prove that my theory does not solve the basic unsolved problems within the SM? Can you prove that I did not calculate the physical constants from the initial conditions? Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion? Can you prove that I did not describe the reasons of the big bang or origin of the dark energy and dark matter? And what is very funny, my theory proves that there are not in existence the postulated particles such as the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. There are in existence in the Einstein spacetime the carriers of the not existing gravitons i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins i.e. their spin is equal to 2. But due to their internal structure, they can create the transverse waves only i.e. when they rotate, they behave as two entangled photons. Gravitational energy is emitted due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating carriers of the not existing gravitons. We can see also that the spin of the carriers of the not existing gravitons (spin=2) and the number of gluons (8) lead to the four-neutrino symmetry and to the two families of neutrinos only. The illusion of the existence of the third family of neutrinos follows from the fact that the neutrino ‘oscillations’ are not transformations of neutrinos but the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As all can see, I wrote: “….This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’”. This means that the ‘acceleration’ CAN BE in existence or CAN BE NOT. My theory proves that the ‘can be not’ is correct.

Firstly the acceleration is the observed phenomena, that is what the Nobel Prize was for. Secondly your theory cannot prove anything. All your theory can do, at best, is be consistent with the data and give particular interpretations. Being consistent with the data doesn't prove you are right.

Newton was consistent with data for 200 years, did that prove him right? No, it just meant that we couldn't observe things carefully enough to see his mistakes. Relativity, even if the neutrinos do move faster than light, was consistent with data for more than a century, does that prove it right? No, it just shows the model was very close to the truth and we couldn't see the error. Likewise, even if your theory was consistent it wouldn't prove anything.

Your inability to grasp this important distinction between consistent with experiments and proving a model shows how bad your grasp of the scientific method is.

But never was the Nobel Prize for such ‘discoveries’ i.e. for a discovery type maybe or maybe not.

Discovery of the CMB. Observation of the neutrino. Discovery of positron. But a few examples....

Non-perturbative mathematics is very well understood for people who read my electronic book
http://www.cosmology-particles.pl

Asserting it doesn't make it true.

Most funny is the fact that my theory solves the all unsolved problems within the SM but people as you try to change the fruitless SM. Within the SM initial conditions we never will explain why neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c (BTW: maximum neutrino speed calculated within the Everlasting Theory is 1.000072c).

I can't help but notice you didn't actually respond to what I said. I pointed out that no theoretical physicist thinks the SM is the last word in theoretical physics, it's not supposed to address everything.

Can't you at least admit to making a strawman?

Can you prove it? Can you prove that there are more than the 7 parameters only?

String theory has none.

Can you prove that the hundreds theoretical results are not consistent with experimental data? Can you prove that my theory does not solve the basic unsolved problems within the SM? Can you prove that I did not calculate the physical constants from the initial conditions? Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion? Can you prove that I did not describe the reasons of the big bang or origin of the dark energy and dark matter?

Done.

And what is very funny, my theory proves that there are not in existence the postulated particles such as the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on.

So, it hypothesises. No amount of experiments can prove your model. Likewise your model cannot prove things about the universe, it can only offer models and explanations. Saying you prove something about the universe is completely false. No, you simply offer an hypothesis.

...deluded self advertising....

Sylwester, no one gives a crap about you endlessly repeating your assertions. You've been doing it for years, decades even, and it's gotten you nowhere. Rather than wheel out a stock reply why can't you engage in discussion properly? If I wanted to read your yammerings I'd go to your website.

Your tactics haven't worked, you've achieved nothing in the last 5+ years. Why don't you try being a little more rational and a little less deluded self advertising.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Firstly the acceleration is the observed phenomena, that is what the Nobel Prize was for.

You do not understand that wrong initial conditions lead to wrong conclusions. Assume that, as it is in my theory, due to the decays of the entangled photons the brightness of the cosmic objects considerably increased about 5.7 billion years ago. Then, the Type Ia supernovae which are in distances greater than the 5.7 billion years, should be fainter than it follows from the redshift. Such phenomenon leads to ILLUSION that expansion of the Universe accelerates.
I claim that the redshift greater than the 1 is the real phenomenon i.e. that the protuberances of the dark energy at the beginning of the big bang, accelerated for shot moment the protogalaxies to the speeds higher than the c. Moreover, this assumption is consistent with the Einstein relativity when we add the correct description of the origin of the gravitational interactions. There were the succeeding explosions of the smaller and smaller cosmic objects and the dominating gravitational fields had been ‘attached’ to the exploding objects. This means that the j+1 object had speed smaller but close to the c in relation to the j object. This leads to conclusion that the formula for the ‘relativistic’ redshift is wrong. This causes ALSO that the distant supernovae are fainter than they should be.
We can see that the ILLUSION of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is because we neglected two very important phenomena. It is because TODAY only I know properties of the dark energy and the reason of the big bang.

Once more: Wrong initial conditions lead to wrong conclusions.

Secondly your theory cannot prove anything. All your theory can do, at best, is be consistent with the data and give particular interpretations. Being consistent with the data doesn't prove you are right.

Very funny. So what proves, for example, that the GR is correct?
You do not understand that there are the better and worse theories. The better theories describe more, are consistent with experimental data and contain less the parameters. This means that my theory is better than the SM.

Newton was consistent with data for 200 years, did that prove him right? No, it just meant that we couldn't observe things carefully enough to see his mistakes. Relativity, even if the neutrinos do move faster than light, was consistent with data for more than a century, does that prove it right? No, it just shows the model was very close to the truth and we couldn't see the error. Likewise, even if your theory was consistent it wouldn't prove anything.

My theory proves that both Newton and Einstein theories are correct. There are two spacetimes. Whole nature we can describe beginning from the Newtonian spacetime.

I pointed out that no theoretical physicist thinks the SM is the last word in theoretical physics,….

It is obvious. Better theory is my theory. It describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from at least 3 times less the parameters.

No amount of experiments can prove your model.

Very funny. My theory shows that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c and predictions are consistent with the MINOS, OPERA and SN 1987A data. The SM is inconsistent with experimental data concerning the neutrino speed.

AlphaNumeric, you compromise yourself because you as a physicist should understand what in science is most important.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Very funny. So what proves, for example, that the GR is correct?

Nothing and no good physicist would have ever claimed it is proven correct.

You are making strawmen.

You do not understand that there are the better and worse theories. The better theories describe more, are consistent with experimental data and contain less the parameters. This means that my theory is better than the SM.

I do understand some models can be better. Relativity is better than Newton. Quantum electrodynamics is better than electromagnetism. They are more general and more accurate but that doesn't prove them.

My theory proves that both Newton and Einstein theories are correct. There are two spacetimes. Whole nature we can describe beginning from the Newtonian spacetime.

Then your theory is inconsistent because Newton and Einstein contradict one another.

It is obvious. Better theory is my theory. It describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from at least 3 times less the parameters.

You keep saying 'consistent with experimental data' but that data is based on the SM. I have explained it to you multiple times. The $$\alpha_{S}$$ values are computed using the SM. If you claim the SM is nonsense you need to explicitly compute $$\alpha_{S}$$ from the data.

You haven't done this, your claims are false.

AlphaNumeric, you compromise yourself because you as a physicist should understand what in science is most important.

I'm the one explaining to you your strawmen. You think people claim GR is proven, which isn't true.

Seeing as this isn't what the original thread was about and, as of today I'm a moderator on these forums, I'll split your stuff off from this thread and kick it over into pseudo, where it belongs.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

All posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum.

 

[prometheus]

All posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum.

Damn it! You beat me to it!

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I suppose I could have sent it to the new 'Alternative theories' subforum. He's at least tried to make his claims coherent, compared to the likes of Pincho or mpc, which are firmly pseudo-science.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

All posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum.

Now all can see how revengeful you are. Within my theory, I predicted and calculated that neutrinos should move with speeds higher than the c. The obtained theoretical results are consistent with all experimental data. Within the SM such calculations are impossible. All can see that when you have not scientific arguments, you make very bad things. It looks as communism in science.
You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I will not discuss in this place of this Forum because my theory soon will be the mainstream theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Now all can see how revengeful you are.

I could have just deleted the posts entirely but I didn't. I could have edited them to make you say "Wow AlphaNumeric, you've opened my eyes, I was wrong all along!" but I didn't. I could have slapped you with a warning because I don't like you but I didn't.

Instead I moved the posts to their proper home and left all of them intact. Hardly 'revengeful'. You need to realise you don't scare people, you don't insight fear, you don't insight anything other than "Oh god he's still spouting that crap!". I pity your ignorance and self delusion, I'm not scared by it.

It looks as communism in science.

I know communism buggered up your country for decades but it isn't an insult, particularly when it's nothing to do with the issue at hand.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I know acting honestly seems shameful to you but some of us are a little better than that.

I will not discuss in this place of this Forum because my theory soon will be the mainstream theory.

You were saying that 5 years ago and you've not made any advances since then. No journal has published your work, no professional research is working on it, no one has even read it all the way through (your errors become apparent early on).

How is it going to be mainstream when practically no one in the mainstream community even knows you exist and no one at all in the mainstream community takes you seriously? Please, answer me that.

 

[Emil]

Why this thread is not in "Alternative Theories" subforum?

 

[Arioch]

Because it doesn't even count as a theory, it's just high-grade woo.

 

[Emil]

Because it doesn't even count as a theory, it's just high-grade woo.

If you say, it should be.

@Sylwester Kornowski,
Hang on, buddy!

 

[Arioch]

@Emil --

If you say, it should be.

Why, because you like it? Sorry but it doesn't work that way. A theory must be parsimonious and it must make testable predictions and/or retrodictions in order to be falsifiable(there are other qualifiers of course, but these are the two biggies). This is neither of those and is therefore not a competing theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis, it's merely an unsupported assertion.

 

[Emil]

@Arioch,
For me it is a theory like GR and much better than SR.
But you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Arioch]

@Emil --

It's not my opinion, it's the only standard in science. If you can't make falsifiable predictions or retrodictions then it's not a theory, end of story.

 

[Emil]

It's not my opinion...

What? I do not talk to you? Who convinced you and how , it is your job.

it's the only standard in science.

Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon?