Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, AlphaNumeric will eat you for breakfast.

That is quite possible. I actively seek interaction with people who are in strong in physics, because it is an opportunity to learn new things.
I cannot help but note though that AlphaNumeric does not appear to think very much of your ideas either...

Markus, you are too weak thinker to discuss on this Forum.

Your personal opinion is noted

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, I know that you like to write about gravity. My position is as follows.

The Quantum Physics (QP) and General Theory of Relativity (GR) have the one weak point. In these theories we assume that the BARE particles are the mathematical points i.e. sizeless. This wrong initial condition leads to the singularities, i.e. infinite densities, and infinite energies of fields. Then, we apply the mathematical tricks to eliminate the infinities, especially in the QP.

Such procedure does not lead and never will lead to origin of the basic physical constants. Such procedure causes that we still cannot solve the tens unsolved basic problems. This means that we must change the initial conditions in the QP and GR in such a way to obtain theory free from the infinities from the beginning.

And it is in my Everlasting Theory. In reality, the bare fermions consist of the Einstein-spacetime components and the bare fermions look similar to the active galaxies: there is the ring/torus and ball in its centre. Such theory is free from the infinities from the beginning, is mathematically very simple and gives best theoretical results.

Scientists do not understand that the speed of light c is not the upper limit for speed in the General Theory of Relativity. This speed is a threshold for speed of the Principle-of-Equivalence particles because such particles are built of from the Einstein-spacetime components which indeed are moving with the speed of light c. But we can write the formula for relativistic energy for tachyons as well. It is obvious that the speed of light will be the lower limit for speed of the tachyons and that the c will be the threshold for speed of the tachyons as well. It is obvious that the tachyons cannot be the Principle-of-Equivalence particles because they are moving with the superluminal speeds. They have the inertial mass but they are the gravitationally massless "particles". Such "particles" cannot be observed directly but they exist and are responsible for the gravitational interactions. The spacetime composed of the tachyons behaves in different way than the Einstein spacetime that leads to the electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions. It is the reason that we cannot unify the GR with the Standard Model.

We can see that the Holy Grail in physics concerns the upper-lower limit of speed i.e. the c. This is the moment when the Principle-of-Equivalence particles (they are described by the GR and QP) transform into the NON-Principle-of-Equivalence "particles" and vice versa. The most important question is as follows: What is the difference in internal structure of these two types of objects? And the Everlasting Theory gives the exact answer to this question. Then the particle physics and cosmology are mathematically the very simple areas of knowledge. Nature does not need powerful computers to know how it should behave. And the Everlasting Theory proves that it is the true.

Recapitulation
The mainstream theories say nothing about internal structure of the bare fermions for the transition from the subluminal to superluminal speeds. On the other hand, the GR is symmetrical i.e. there can appear the superluminal speeds as well.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Here

http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski ,

you can find my new articles titled:
“Origin of Symmetries and Symmetry-Breaking in Physics”
and
“Why Unification of Gravity and Standard Model is Impossible?"

Still cannot find a reputable journal to publish your work I see. Obviously I've spent the last few weeks more productively than you, some of us actually produce science, rather than trying to con lay persons. All your claims, all your lies, all your (quite frankly) bullshit, for all this time and you have nothing to show for it. Must be pretty depressing for you. You shout and shout and shout and no one cares. You've been here years and now the only people who reply are those of us who feel like a bit of pointing and laughing.

Sylwester, it is obvious you know you have failed. The fact you do not answer my question with anything other than diversions shows that. I asked if you think someone working on string theory, who will immediately see you lie constantly about it, will really think you're worth listening to? Your response didn't address that. I'll elaborate, since clearly either you're unwilling or unable to understand.

You lie constantly about physics. You use your own definitions. You misrepresent mainstream work. You lie about how your own nonsense supposedly explains or improves something in the mainstream. Anyone and everyone with any physics education who has looked at your work on this forum has noted your utter dishonesty, saying I don't understand when everyone disagrees with you is just denial on your part. Do you think you're going to gain the interest of a mainstream physicist when the first thing any such person will note when reading your work is you're a compulsive perpetual liar. Regardless of whether your ideas are valid or not if you're clearly and unashamedly a liar to your core no one is going to want to engage in any kind of meaningful work with you. Being a good scientist is more than just being able to do the details, it's about being honest and being able to engage in discussion with others. Even if you had something worthwhile to say (which you don't) it is surrounded by the dishonesty your posts are soaked in.

You have no idea what good science is. You have no idea what the mainstream says. You have no idea what honesty means. Now you can whine and complain and declare otherwise but the 30 years of your abject failings pays testament to it. If you really have valid models why has everyone, scientists, forum posters, people inside the science community and people outside the science community, everyone, so utterly rejected you? Because you're dishonest. You can whine and claim otherwise and throw insults at me but tomorrow I will go to work and be paid to do fundamental scientific research and you'll ..... what will you do? Post another set of lies and delusions on a forum or two. Just like you've been doing for years..... decades. You started your nonsense before I was born and you've accomplished nothing.

Do something constructive with your existence. If you have a family spend more time with them. Take up fishing. Learn to paint. Volunteer for a charity. Visit the other side of the planet. If you don't have a family then I pity you, it would only illustrate further what decades of lies have cost you.

 

[Markus Hanke]

The Quantum Physics (QP) and General Theory of Relativity (GR) have the one weak point. In these theories we assume that the BARE particles are the mathematical points i.e. sizeless.

Wrong on both counts.

Quantum Physics ( from the context I presume you mean QFT by that ) in its currently accepted form does not deal with gravity at all.
General Relativity on the other hand does not presume that particles are point-like; it is a mathematical simplification, but GR in itself is very well able to handle spatially extended bodies.

Now you can whine and complain and declare otherwise but the 30 years of your abject failings pays testament to it.

Absolutely correct, AlphaNumeric.
He publishes on viXra - enough said.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Wrong on both counts.

Quantum Physics ( from the context I presume you mean QFT by that ) in its currently accepted form does not deal with gravity at all.

You, the same as AlphaNumeric, do not understand what you are reading. Just I never wrote that QFTs includes gravity. There is my paper titled: "Why Unification of Gravity and the Standard Model is Impossible?".

General Relativity on the other hand does not presume that particles are point-like; it is a mathematical simplification, but GR in itself is very well able to handle spatially extended bodies.

You write about the initial conditions i.e. the constancy of the speed of light and equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses. But it is obvious that it is not the whole truth. For example, the GR says nothing about internal structure of the Einstein spacetime.

So what is the energy of gravitational field in the GR of, for example, an electron? What value of force we obtain for radius equal to zero? Can you describe internal structure of BARE electron within the GR?

You do not understand that within the GR we neglect the internal structure of the bare particles. If it is untrue then you should be able to describe such structure within the GR. Of course, the Kasner solution suggests how the bare fermions should look but it is described in my book only.

It is very difficult to "discuss" with persons who completely do not understand physics.
Moreover, you are dishonest because some your sentences are taken from ceiling. If you claim something, then you should write scientific arguments. Only fanatical people can claim that in vixra are only wrong papers whereas in the scientific journals are only correct papers. The history of science shows that it is the untrue.

 

[Markus Hanke]

You write about the initial conditions i.e. the constancy of the speed of light and equivalence of the gravitational and inertial masses

No, I never mentioned anything about "initial conditions", "speed of light" or the equivalence principle. I simply said that GR is very well able to handle spatially extended bodies.
Perhaps you would care to point out exactly in which post I mentioned any of these things.

You do not understand that within the GR we neglect the internal structure of the bare particles. If it is untrue then you should be able to describe such structure within the GR. Of course, the Kasner solution suggests how the bare fermions should look but it is described in my book only.

GR is a geometrical model of gravity, not a theory to describe the internal structure of elementary particles.
Also, the Kasner metric is a cosmological vacuum solution to the GR field equations in the absence of matter and energy, and as such has no bearing on the internal structure of fermions.

It is very difficult to "discuss" with persons who completely do not understand physics.

Yes, you can say that again !

 

[Markus Hanke]

You, the same as AlphaNumeric, do not understand what you are reading. Just I never wrote that QFTs includes gravity.

Tell me then, what exactly did you refer to when you said "Quantum Physics", if not QFT ?

The history of science shows that it is the untrue.

Again, can you be more specific and show us exactly in which way the history of science vindicates viXra ?

 

[ash64449]

marcus,what is viXra?

 

[Markus Hanke]

marcus,what is viXra?

It's an open access archive where anyone can publish anything they want, without peer review or any kind of feedback system. This already ought to give you a good idea what type of stuff appears there; here's a few gems from the site :

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1301.0127v1.pdf
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v1.pdf
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1104.0083v1.pdf

It is basically an attempt to mimic its reputable counterpart, the pre-print archive arXiv, which due its peer review process doesn't admit crackpottery, only papers based on real science.
Because of the lack of any editorial action viXra has become a common gathering ground for pretty much any Internet crank who thinks he has something to publish; you will find a large number of articles there which on the surface look reputable due to their use of scientific terminology, but, upon closer inspection, are nothing but meaningless gibberish, or worse. Having your name on a paper published on viXra does for that reason pretty much label you as a crank for life. viXra authors will of course disagree, but then again, the only reason why they are on there in the first place is because they get rejected by real peer review platforms.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

No, I never mentioned anything about "initial conditions", "speed of light" or the equivalence principle. I simply said that GR is very well able to handle spatially extended bodies.
Perhaps you would care to point out exactly in which post I mentioned any of these things.

Words, words, words….It is typical for very weak thinkers. Markus you wrote as follows.

General Relativity on the other hand does not presume that particles are point-like….

You wrote “General Relativity ….does not presume…”. Did not it concern the initial conditions as well? Markus, I have no time for such nonsensical discussion. You should formulate a problem and next add scientific arguments. If you cannot discuss in such a way then our “discussion” is useless.

Why you write the obvious things? Why you rewrite the Wikipedia? Are you able to present some interesting new/your ideas?

Also, the Kasner metric is a cosmological vacuum solution to the GR field equations in the absence of matter and energy, and as such has no bearing on the internal structure of fermions.

You still write the same nonsensical sentences. Do you claim that the Kasner solution is for nothingness?
My theory shows as follows.
1.
Mass/energy density of spacetime is much, much higher than the matter and energy in our Universe.
2.
Matter is built of from the Einstein-spacetime components so the bare fermions as well. We can say that the particles carrying mass are the entangled Einstein-spacetime components whereas the massless energy, for example, photons and gluons are the rotational energies of the Einstein-spacetime components. The ground state of the Einstein spacetime behaves as vacuum free from energies and matter (there is lack of rotational energies and entanglement of the Einstein-spacetime components). And the Kasner solution concerns the ground state of the Einstein spacetime. There is lack of energy and matter but there can change mass density of the spacetime. For example, the dark energy is the “thickened” Einstein spacetime.

You and others do not understand the GR and what the Kasner solution means because you completely do not understand the internal structure and behaviour of the “vacuum”. The exact Kasner solution leads to the three numbers (0, 0, 1) whereas the approximate solution is (-1/3, 2/3, 2/3). There are the other approximate solutions. We can investigate motion of a test particle. Such investigation leads to very important conclusions – see my book. Due to the exact and approximate solutions, we can reformulate the Quantum Chromodynamics in such a way that such theory leads to the masses of the quarks as well (see my book). It means that in the reformulate QCD the masses of quarks are not the initial conditions as it is in the mainstream QCD.

Tell me then, what exactly did you refer to when you said "Quantum Physics", if not QFT ?

It is the next nonsensical sentence. In many my papers I write about the Quantum Theory of Field(s) (QTFs). You should read it. Then, you probably will not write the nonsense. Your sentence does not follow from my posts, just it is from ceiling.

Again, can you be more specific and show us exactly in which way the history of science vindicates viXra ?

It is the next nonsensical sentence. My sentence consists of from two parts. The second part concerns the papers published in scientific journals but it concerns, for example, the arXiv as well. Do you claim that in the scientific journals or book published by scientific organizations, or in arXiv are and were published only correct papers? Of course, the answer is negative. There is some probability not equal to zero that many papers published by viXra are correct.

I should not answer to such non-logical questions.
Can you concentrate on the alternative theories or ideas? You know, this Section is devoted to alternative theories or ideas. Your “revelations” we can read in the Wikipedia.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Moreover, you are dishonest because some your sentences are taken from ceiling. If you claim something, then you should write scientific arguments

Funny how you don't follow your own 'rules'. If you had a scientific argument for your claims you'd be able to be published in reputable journals. Instead you've been an utter failure for more than 3 decades. You have no scientific case for your claims, you have only abject dishonesty,

If you disagree with this then please submit your work to a reputable journal and we can wait to see if you pass review. You know you won't, hence why you put your work on Vixra.

Only fanatical people can claim that in vixra are only wrong papers whereas in the scientific journals are only correct papers. The history of science shows that it is the untrue.

And where did he say that? Another stellar illustration of how you're dishonest. Vixra might well have a good paper or two on it but such instances are drowned out by the tidal wave of bullshit hacks like you post. That's why ArXiv has a verification requirement, otherwise dishonest hacks like you with nothing of any worth to say would flood the site with shit and you wouldn't lose a moment of sleep over the negative impact such actions would have on the community. ArXiv is useful because it allows people who have been vouched for as at least not worthless hacks. Sure, doesn't mean all papers on ArXiv are right but it helps to immediately and easily remove the nonsense hacks like you would post. ArXiv's existent and utility requires hacks like you to be kept away from it so that people like myself, who do read and use scientific literature, do not have to wade through paper after paper of delusional mental masturbation from hacks to find the sane papers. If they opened the flood gates the site would stop being of any use. Just like how vixra is not taken seriously in the research community as it is full of crap. Those people who put work on vixra who want to get into journals or onto ArXiv can submit their work and pass review, getting someone to vouch for them and then they can post on ArXiv. If you have something interesting to say then you can get on ArXiv. You don't. You never do.

Words, words, words….It is typical for very weak thinkers.

And it is all you have. You put document after document online, making post after post on forums and you accomplish nothing.

By your own criteria you are a 'very weak thinker'.

In many my papers I write about the Quantum Theory of Field(s) (QTFs).

Which you know nothing about. I'm certain you couldn't pass a university course on quantum field theory. You do not have the mathematical knowledge or capability to do what the mainstream called quantum field theory. Instead you make up your own meaning for the concept and act dishonestly.

I'll take from your ignoring of my last post you have no retort. Clearly you know you've wasted more than 30 years of your existence, you're just too afraid to admit it.

 

[brucep]

It's an open access archive where anyone can publish anything they want, without peer review or any kind of feedback system. This already ought to give you a good idea what type of stuff appears there; here's a few gems from the site :

http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1301.0127v1.pdf
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1212.0080v1.pdf
http://www.vixra.org/pdf/1104.0083v1.pdf

It is basically an attempt to mimic its reputable counterpart, the pre-print archive arXiv, which due its peer review process doesn't admit crackpottery, only papers based on real science.
Because of the lack of any editorial action viXra has become a common gathering ground for pretty much any Internet crank who thinks he has something to publish; you will find a large number of articles there which on the surface look reputable due to their use of scientific terminology, but, upon closer inspection, are nothing but meaningless gibberish, or worse. Having your name on a paper published on viXra does for that reason pretty much label you as a crank for life. viXra authors will of course disagree, but then again, the only reason why they are on there in the first place is because they get rejected by real peer review platforms.

Thanks for that. The archive was my intro to the scientific literature. 20 years of going there 'first'. Tell me what I don't know about this. Initially [at least 'back when'] the papers submitted were peer reviewed. Eventually the archive didn't have the resources to peer review every submission so they developed a system where the author of a paper must have 'signature approval', for the submission, from an individual [scientist] authorized by the archive. It's a great resource. Can't think of any fringe nonsense making it into the archive. I had to chuckle when sylwester put you in his 'peanut brain' category.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric and Markus Hanke try to prove that some places in Internet are better for publication of my book and papers than the other. But they completely do not understand that most important is not the place but what my papers contain. They are unable to discuss in a scientific way so they write the tremendous number of the affirmations that are non-substantial. I have no time for stupid discussion.

It is obvious that there are the groups of business interest in the scientific community. Such groups are everywhere, not only in science. Even children know it. So due to the viXra there is democracy in the particle physics and cosmology.

But I must ones more emphasize that most important is what my book and papers contain.

Now I will prove that Markus and many others do not understand the Einstein field equations and it causes that since 1948 we still cannot answer the tens of fundamental questions in particle physics and cosmology. Markus wrote that the Kasner solution is for “vacuum” free from matter and energy so it is not valid. And it is the most stupid sentence in his posts.

In the Einstein field equations is the stress-energy tensor T that concerns the matter and energy but Markus and many others do not understand origin of it. We cannot describe origin of the T on base of the mainstream theories. It is possible within the Everlasting Theory only. There is the Einstein spacetime. Einstein tried to describe its internal structure but in his days it was impossible. Then many others tried to do it but all such theories beside my theory are useless because they do not lead to the experimental data only. The internal structure of the Einstein spacetime appears due to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime composed of the pieces of space. The Einstein spacetime is not coded in the stress-energy tensor. It is coded in the cosmological constant Lambda and the geometry of spacetime i.e. it is generally on the left part of the Einstein field equations whereas the stress-energy tensor T is on the right part.

Markus completely does not understand that for T = 0, i.e. for “vacuum” free from the matter and energy, the Einstein field equations do not disappear!!!! There is still the cosmological constant Lambda that leads to the density of the “vacuum”!!!! Markus does not know that the “vacuum” field equations, i.e. for the stress-energy tensor T equal to zero, define Einstein manifolds. And the Kasner solution developed in my Everlasting Theory concerns the “vacuum” field equations that lead to the density of the “vacuum”.

Only within my theory we can describe origin of the stress-energy tensor T. The word “stress” is directly associated with the ENTANGLEMENT of the Einstein-spacetime components and the entanglement leads to the MATTER i.e. to the “thickened” regions of the “vacuum”. On the other hand, the world “energy” is directly associated with the ROTATIONAL ENERGIES of the Einstein-spacetime components and the rotational energies lead to the ENERGY i.e. to the PHOTONS and GLUONS.

Recapitulation
My theory shows that the stress-energy tensor T in the GR is the entanglement---rotational-energies tensor. When the entanglement and rotational energies disappear then we obtain the ground state of the Einstein spacetime i.e. the “vacuum” and the Kasner solution concerns the FLOWS in the Einstein spacetime.

The Kasner solution leads to following conclusion. When one spatial dimension decreases then the two other dimensions increases. What it mean?! It is the threshold to understand physics and cosmology correctly! The answer is in my book and the explanation is as follows.

Assume that in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime appeared vortex (T = 0 i.e. the Einstein-spacetime components have only the kinetic speeds equal to the c) and that its radius decreases. Then the Kasner solution says that the two other dimensions increases i.e. there must increase the surface of the vortex i.e. there arises TORUS!!!!!!!! On the other hand, the phase transitions described in the Everlasting Theory, lead to the torus inside neutrinos, to the torus inside the core of baryons and the cosmic torus that leads to the DARK ENERGY!!!

The exact Kasner solution (0, 0, 1) and the approximate Kasner solution (-1/3, 2/3, 2/3) lead to the proportions of the tori and to the reformulated QCD described within the Everlasting Theory.

And it is the real physics and cosmology. It is in viXra, not in arXiv or scientific journals.
Just I am the best physicist. The last sentence I wrote to provoke the sophisticated AlphaNumeric.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Do you claim that the Kasner solution is for nothingness?

I claim exactly what I wrote - the Kasner solution is a cosmological vaccum solution in the absence of matter and energy.

It is the next nonsensical sentence. In many my papers I write about the Quantum Theory of Field(s) (QTFs). You should read it. Then, you probably will not write the nonsense. Your sentence does not follow from my posts, just it is from ceiling.

So you did refer to QFT after all. Why did you deny it then ?

Markus completely does not understand that for T = 0, i.e. for “vacuum” free from the matter and energy, the Einstein field equations do not disappear!!!! There is still the cosmological constant Lambda that leads to the density of the “vacuum”!!!! Markus does not know that the “vacuum” field equations, i.e. for the stress-energy tensor T equal to zero, define Einstein manifolds. And the Kasner solution developed in my Everlasting Theory concerns the “vacuum” field equations that lead to the density of the “vacuum”.

I understand the mathematics and physics of GR quite well, having actually done the calculations for a number of EFE solutions myself.
What you, on the other hand, don't understand is that the Kasner metric is a solution of the Einstein equations without cosmological constant, so Lambda never appears in that metric, or in the constraint equations for the Kasner coefficients. So once again - the Kasner metric is a cosmological vacuum solution which describes an anisotropic universe in the absence of energy or matter. The cosmological constant vanishes everywhere on a Kasner manifold.

I must say though that the above statement by yourself is quite a brilliant display of utter ignorance.

The word “stress” is directly associated with the ENTANGLEMENT of the Einstein-spacetime components

Utter nonsense. Stress has nothing to do at all with entanglement.

 

[Markus Hanke]

So due to the viXra there is democracy in the particle physics and cosmology.

That is exactly the problem. Due to the lack of a peer review process anything that is published on viXra is ignored by the scientific community, and just ends up slipping into oblivion. That is just fine for the vast majority of publications there ( since they're gibberish ), but obviously devastating for the handful of papers which actually do contain real science. They are condemned by virtue of association with a crank website. So no matter how you look at it, viXra is a deeply flawed concept. Democracy, if implemented right, is a good concept in politics, but certainly not in science.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, I have no time for nonsensical discussion. You and others do not understand the origin of the dark energy so you write the nonsense about the cosmological constant Lambda. You are unable to admit that you are not right. I explained in details why you are not right.

So once more: The Kasner solution leads to the internal structure of the BARE half-integral-spin fermions.

Arrivederci Roma

BTW
There appeared my new paper titled "Derivation of the Pauli Exclusion Principle".

It is here

http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski ,

 

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, I have no time for nonsensical discussion. You and others do not understand the origin of the dark energy so you write the nonsense about the cosmological constant Lambda.

May I remind you that it was yourself who brought up the subject of the cosmological constant in the context of the Kasner metric. Now you are mentioning dark energy, which again is not a part of Kasner space-times.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

So once more: You do not understand origin of the dark energy. The dark energy defines both the cosmological constant Lambda and the metric.
The dark energy is the "thickened" spacetime.

Why you are unable to understand my simple explanations? It is because you try to be right but you are not. You should read my theory. Then, probably, you will not write the nonsense.

 

[Markus Hanke]

So once more: You do not understand origin of the dark energy. The dark energy defines both the cosmological constant Lambda and the metric.

I understand both dark energy and the cosmological constant perfectly. The problem is just that none of these appear in Kasner space-times, which is all I am trying to point out.

The dark energy is the "thickened" spacetime.

Space-time does not have "thickness".

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you are very weak thinker so I try once more explain you what my very simple sentences mean.
So once more: You wrote as follows.

Also, the Kasner metric is a cosmological vacuum solution to the GR field equations in the absence of matter and energy, and as such has no bearing on the internal structure of fermions.

Next I proved that this sentence is nonsensical. I proved that for stress-energy tensor T equal to zero we can still say about the FLOWS in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime. It is because the absence of matter and energy does not mean absence of mass and internal energy of the Einstein-spacetime components. Next I added the very important information that the dark energy is the “thickened” Einstein spacetime. For a thinking person it means that the dark energy must define both the metric (you know, there is the word “spacetime”) and the cosmological constant Lambda (you know, there is the word “thickened”)!!!!!!

The Kasner solution shows as follows: when one spatial dimension decreases then the two other spatial dimensions increase. I proved that there arises the cosmological TORUS. It is obvious that we still say about the ground state of the Einstein spacetime i.e. T = 0. But density of the Einstein spacetime increases and at some moment there appears the ENTANGLEMENT of the Einstein-spacetime components i.e. there appears MATTER. This leads to the conclusion that the Kasner solution leads INDIRECTLY to the internal structure of the bare matter i.e. to the tori.