Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Markus Hanke]

There is no dark energy in the Kasner metric, neither is there a cosmological constant. There are no "flows in the ground state of Einstein space-time", and there is no "thickness" associated with space-time.

The Kasner solution shows as follows: when one spatial dimension decreases then the two other spatial dimensions increase.

The Kasner metric shows no such thing. All it shows is that space-time expands anisotropically.

I proved that there arises the cosmological TORUS.

The Kasner solution is simply a cosmological metric, it makes no prediction as to the topology of the universe.

But density of the Einstein spacetime increases and at some moment there appears the ENTANGLEMENT

"Density of Einstein space-time" is a meaningless term, and entanglement of particles has nothing to do with any densities.

Markus, you are very weak thinker so I try once more explain you what my very simple sentences mean.

Oh I understand your simple sentences very well. That does not however make them any less wrong. Are you not tired yet of constantly inventing fairy tales ?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, your affirmations are non-substantial. There is lack of scientific arguments.
Markus, you compromise yourself and readers can see it. For example, you wrote many sentences that concern the internal structure of spacetime but you are unable to describe the structure. Just you are dishonest. The internal structure of the Einstein spacetime is described correctly only in my theory.

I will not discuss with fanatics.

There is no alternative theory to my Everlasting Theory. Scientists that behave as Markus (he is not a physicist) cause the regress in particle physics and cosmology. It lasts a few decades.

So what is origin of the basic physical constants?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

In the ALICE experiment:

see http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.3615 October 8, 2012

the pseudorapidity density measured at sqrt(s) = 5.02 TeV in relation to sqrt(s) = 0.2 TeV is 2.14 +- 0.17 (see Fig. 2).

My formula (161) (see my book [1] on viXra; page 55) gives
sqrt(sqrt(5.02/0.2)) = 2.24.

We can see that my theoretical result overlaps with the experimental data.
The formula (161) is as well in the version v1 (see page 54) that was published on March 6, 2012 i.e. before the experimental data were published. Of course, the formula (161) in reality appeared a few years ago on my website but it is not important because the version v1 was published before October 8, 2012.

 

[Undefined]

"Density of Einstein space-time" is a meaningless term, and entanglement of particles has nothing to do with any densities.

Sorry to butt in with my naive understandings, but isn't the Big Bang Hypothesis all about "space-time density" changing (expanding) due to so called dark energy associated with the cosmological constant of current theory?

 

[Markus Hanke]

Sorry to butt in with my naive understandings, but isn't the Big Bang Hypothesis all about "space-time density" changing (expanding) due to so called dark energy associated with the cosmological constant of current theory?

No. "Space-time density" is a meaningless term. In the early universe the energy density was very high, and the size of the universe was very small. The universe then expanded; there was a short period where it expanded very rapidly due to the presence of an inflaton background field ( inflationary period ), later then it expanded more slowly but at an increasing rate due to dark energy.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

In my post #403 I wrote as follows.

In the ALICE experiment:

see http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.3615 October 8, 2012

the pseudorapidity density measured at sqrt(s) = 5.02 TeV in relation to sqrt(s) = 0.2 TeV is 2.14 +- 0.17 (see Fig. 2).

My formula (161) (see my book [1] on viXra; page 55) gives
sqrt(sqrt(5.02/0.2)) = 2.24.

We can see that my theoretical result overlaps with the experimental data.
The formula (161) is as well in the version v1 (see page 54) that was published on March 6, 2012 i.e. before the experimental data were published. Of course, the formula (161) in reality appeared a few years ago on my website but it is not important because the version v1 was published before October 8, 2012.

I must add something very important. My formula (161) we can rewrite as follows
X = sqrt(sqrt(E[TeV]/0.2)).
It is the pseudorapidity density measured at energy E in TeV for the inelastic pp collisions in relation to the value for energy 0.2 TeV.
This formula leads to following results:
0.02 TeV gives X = 0.56. This result overlaps with the experimental data NA35.
2.76 TeV gives X = 1.93. This result overlaps with the ALICE experiment.
5.02 TeV gives X = 2.24. This result overlaps with the ALICE experiment.

You can compare my theoretical results for X with the all experimental data presented in the Fig. 2 here (see page 6)

http://arxiv.org/abs/arXiv:1210.3615 .

Can you see that my theoretical results overlap with all experimental data?!!!
I just predicted it.
Do you remember my discussion with AlphaNumeric concerning the pseudorapidity density? I wrote that the future experiments will show that my theoretical result 1.93 for the energy 2.76 TeV is consistent with experimental data. He denied! He wrote the caddish sentences. All can read it in this thread. I cited the experimental result in which the lower limit was 2.02 i.e. a little above my result 1.93. And what? Now all can compare my result with the experimental data obtained in the ALICE experiment - it is in approximation the interval between 1.8 and 2.0 (see the Fig. 2).

Recapitulation
Within my Everlasting Theory, I perfectly predicted the pseudorapidity densities at high energy. My formula as well gives better results than the other models at low energies – just you can compare my result X = 0.56 with experimental result and the curve presented in Fig. 2.
My formula follows from the atom-like structure of baryons. In the core of baryons is the torus that proportions follow indirectly from the Kasner solution obtained within the General Theory of Relativity.

Can you see that my theory shows the tangent points between the General Theory of Relativity and the Particle Physics? Moreover, the Kasner solution leads to the new cosmoloby presented in my book.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I must add once more something very important for me.
I tried to publish the formula (161) concerning the pseudorapidity density for inelastic pp collision already three years ago, i.e. in 2010, in my post in my thread titled “Liquid-like Plasma” on PhysOrg Forum. There was the derivation based on the atom-like structure of baryons. Then rpenner, i.e. the moderator deleted it and added the caddish comment. I will cite only a few words: “I’m deleting your pseudoscientific rape of logic….”. He is on this Forum so he can deny it if I am not right.

Then rpenner and AlphaNumeric wrote the caddish and non-logic posts and rpenner banned me for nothing for 5 years, just due to the correct formula. Can you see the banditry?

Now, I proved that my very simple calculations lead to correct formula and that the obtained very simple formula
X = sqrt(sqrt(E[TeV]/0.2))
is fully consistent with all experimental data. Just I predicted the values at high energy.

And AlphaNumeric insolently writes that there is democracy in particle physics.
If not viXra, I today would not be able to prove that the derivation of the formula (161) appeared before the new experimental data were published!!!!

Can you see the hypocrisy? I am still banned on PhysOrg FOR NOTHING, just due to the dishonesty of rpenner and AlphaNumeric.

 

[Undefined]

No. "Space-time density" is a meaningless term. In the early universe the energy density was very high, and the size of the universe was very small. The universe then expanded; there was a short period where it expanded very rapidly due to the presence of an inflaton background field ( inflationary period ), later then it expanded more slowly but at an increasing rate due to dark energy.

My naive understanding is that Big Bang also involved a "space-time energy density" state itself didn't it along with the other energy densities of the Unified Energies and properties State of Big Bang content before inflation started? So did later expansion and acceleration of expansion. If the metric of space-time energy changes like that then "density of space-time" metric and associated energy is a logical inference isn't it? If proper galaxy motion is through this space-time but expansion is not movement of galaxies through space but more space without new geodesics for galaxies through that metric, then it must be spacetime density that changes, not through spacetime motion or distance involving separate additional proper motion component for those far galaxies relative to all other far galaxies. That is my naive understanding of how galaxies can have a proper motion component of redshift and a space-time expansion component of redshift on top of that. Far distant galaxies are not actually moving away from us at relativistic redshift, it is their light that is being shifted traversing "changing space-time density" distances between normally moving proper motion recession speeds through whatever the changed spacetime densities become through this expansion process which does not affect galaxy motions on top of the usual gravity interactions proper motion changes. Are my naive understandings of current Big Bang "space-time expansion" as just "space-time energy density changes" not correct? In my naive understanding it is this changing "space-time energy density" change that "dark energy" effect is all about. The observed effects we attribute to "dark energy" is just "space-time energy density change" which produces ever greater redshifted light values from far galaxies. Logical conclusion of my naive understandings of this.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Markus, the best thing to do is to just point out Sylwester's dishonesty when he redefines words to suit his purpose. He does it with 'asymptotic freedom', 'string theory', 'T duality', 'quark gluon plasma', all sorts. Now he's doing it with 'entanglement'. Don't bother to try to explain to him the difference, he is clearly aware of his dishonesty, he just doesn't care. Here's another example in his last post :

I tried to publish the formula (161) concerning the pseudorapidity density for inelastic pp collision already three years ago, i.e. in 2010, in my post in my thread titled “Liquid-like Plasma” on PhysOrg Forum.

That isn't 'publishing', not in the sense of the word I or anyone else in the research community would use. To get published in the research community means passing peer review at a reputable journal. You were posting text on a forum. There's a world of difference. Publishing requires your work passes review by people who work in the domain, with years of experience. Posting means you have an email address for registration.

You, once again, misuse words so you can delude yourself and deceive others into thinking you're more than an abject failure.

There was the derivation based on the atom-like structure of baryons. Then rpenner, i.e. the moderator deleted it and added the caddish comment. I will cite only a few words: “I’m deleting your pseudoscientific rape of logic….”. He is on this Forum so he can deny it if I am not right.

Then rpenner and AlphaNumeric wrote the caddish and non-logic posts and rpenner banned me for nothing for 5 years, just due to the correct formula. Can you see the banditry?

Wrong. Rpenner didn't ban you for 'just due to the correct formula', he banned you for your years and years of dishonesty and deception, just like you post here but this subforum has more open rules.

You're a hack and a fraud. That's why anyone with any level of honesty and love of science rejects you.

And AlphaNumeric insolently writes that there is democracy in particle physics.
If not viXra, I today would not be able to prove that the derivation of the formula (161) appeared before the new experimental data were published!!!!

There's democracy, we just expect people to meet basic levels of honesty and accuracy. If you truely could turn over physics and you could present your case properly and honestly then people would fall on your work, desperate to get in at the start and help. When someone suggested an alternative to general relativity a few years ago, based on entropy, hundreds, if not thousands, of papers appeared on it in the space of a few months. Loads and loads of people wanted to explore this new idea. It turned out to have serious problems in the end but it illustrates how new ideas are met with open arms provided they can be presented honestly and clearly. The whole 'neutrinos faster than light' thing from CERN a few years ago also shows the community is open to seriously considering experimental data which might contradict something as 'fundamental' as special relativity.

These examples show your complaints are without basis. The reason you have failed to get anywhere is you. You lie. You deceive. You con. You misrepresent. And you pay the price for that.

Can you see the hypocrisy? I am still banned on PhysOrg FOR NOTHING, just due to the dishonesty of rpenner and AlphaNumeric.

Why don't we get Rpenner in here to see what the reason was, rather than you giving your version of events since, as we've all seen many times before, you're not above misrepresenting me in a thread I am in.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, the best thing to do is to just point out Sylwester's dishonesty when he redefines words to suit his purpose.

Well, so long as he stays in the "Fringe" section I think even that is a waste of time. Best thing would be to just ignore him, like the rest of the scientific community does.

The whole 'neutrinos faster than light' thing from CERN a few years ago also shows the community is open to seriously considering experimental data which might contradict something as 'fundamental' as special relativity.

Same story back then. When the news first broke Sylwester was all over the Internet boasting how he "predicted" superluminal neutrinos. When it later turned out that the result was due to technical errors, he made up some silly excuse about only some of them being superluminal, and those note being directly observable, or some such thing. Typical.

As to "formula (161)" - I think the kindest thing one could call it is "numerology". There are a few decidedly less kind terms, which I won't mention here

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Undefined,

The true cosmology is described within the Everlasting Theory. But at first I will write a few sentences about particle physics and atoms to show the lack of logic in the mainstream theories.

The Everlasting Theory shows that the masses of quarks appear due to interactions of baryons. It is not true that non-relativistic free protons and neutrons consist of relativistic quarks. The incorrect assumption causes that since 1964 (about half of century) we cannot define the exact masses of the up and down quarks in such a way to calculate the exact masses of the nucleons i.e. of the fundamental components of Nature. In reality the quark-antiquark pairs are produced by gluons and it is some analogy to the electron-positron pairs produced by photons. But we know that the main part of mass of an atom is not associated with the real or virtual electron-positron pairs. The main part is carried by nucleus. Similarly is inside non-relativistic free baryons. There is the core of baryons that internal structure follows indirectly from the Kasner solution obtained within the General Theory of Relativity. The core of baryons is an analog to the nuclei in atoms. Such obvious model leads, for example, to mass of proton equal to 938.272 MeV.

Now I will write a few sentences of the TRUE cosmology (the very detailed explanations you can find in my book).
1.
The ground state of the Einstein spacetime arose in the “era” of inflation. It consists of the vector particles moving with the speed of light c. The components have gravitational mass but they are the non-relativistic particles. They do not rotate and they cannot change the kinetic speed c. This means that it is very difficult to detect them. There is only the indirect proof that they are in existence - it is due to the observed entanglement.
Recapitulation
The ground state of the Einstein spacetime has very high mass density and there are possible the flows in it, for example, due to the small local flows there can appear the virtual pairs, for example, the virtual electron-positron pairs.
2.
The Kasner solution shows that in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime can appear the UNSTABLE COSMIC TORUS (see my previous posts). But due to the entanglement it can transform into the real cosmic torus. Internal structure of such torus follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime composed of the moving and rotating pieces of space.
3.
Our early Universe arose inside the cosmic torus as a loop.
4.
Due to the phase transition (see my book) of the cosmic torus, there disappeared the entanglement and the cosmic torus transformed into the dark energy. The dark energy is composed of the Einstein-spacetime components and this energy increased the mass density of the ground state of the Einstein spacetime. The dark energy produces the positive pressure and the radial speed of the front of it is equal to the speed of light. It is untrue that density of the ground state of the Einstein spacetime decreases with time! There decreases density of the dark energy. Today, in cosmic scale, the groups of galaxies have the same radial speeds as the local dark energy. It leads to the red shift, in good approximation, linearly dependent on distance.
5.
The phase transition described in point 4 caused the exit of the early Universe from the black-hole state.
6.
There is the formula that transforms the observed redshift into the real radial speed. This formula is incorrect and causes that the distant supernovae are darker than they should be. It leads to the incorrect conclusion that without a cause there is acceleration of expansion of our Universe. In reality, the observed redshift leads DIRECTLY to the radial speeds.
We observe the very distant galaxies with radial speeds much higher than the speed of light. It is due to the protuberances in the dark energy that appeared due to the transition of the cosmic torus into the dark energy. At the beginning there were the gigantic flows in the “thickened” Einstein spacetime. The superluminal radial speeds very quickly were reduced to the c.
7.
The exact calculations lead to conclusion that TODAY the radial speeds (so NOT OBSERVED) are as follows. The front of the dark energy is moving with the speed c. The front of baryonic matter is moving with speed 0.6415c that leads to the radius equal to about 13.5 billion light-years i.e. 13.5*10^9 light-years i.e. 13.5 Giga light-years. But the age of the dark energy is about 21 billion years.
The exact calculations for the new cosmology lead to the observed abundance of the visible matter, dark matter and dark energy.

The incorrect formula for radial speed applied in the mainstream cosmology leads to the radial speed 0.6c for redshift equal to z = 1 (we can say that the c leads to the 0.6c). This speed is close to the radial speed 0.6415c obtained within the Everlasting Theory. It causes that many results obtained within the mainstream cosmology overlap with the results obtained within the Everlasting Theory. But since in the mainstream cosmology there are the wrong initial conditions as well, then this cosmology leads to the incorrect interpretations as well. But there can be observed a real local acceleration of expansion that follows from decays of the entangled photons and from disappearance of the entanglement of photons with dark matter (see my book).

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Well, so long as he stays in the "Fringe" section I think even that is a waste of time. Best thing would be to just ignore him, like the rest of the scientific community does.

Same story back then. When the news first broke Sylwester was all over the Internet boasting how he "predicted" superluminal neutrinos. When it later turned out that the result was due to technical errors, he made up some silly excuse about only some of them being superluminal, and those note being directly observable, or some such thing. Typical.

As to "formula (161)" - I think the kindest thing one could call it is "numerology". There are a few decidedly less kind terms, which I won't mention here

Markus, you are a liar. I always claimed that the superluminal neutrinos appear ONLY when the weak decays take place inside baryons. And I still claim it. The future experiments, the same as it is with the pseudorapidity density, will show that superluminal neutrinos are in existence.

There were the superluminal neutrinos. Next, there was the attact on the experimental results. And what? At once all superluminal neutrinos disappeared. It is a politics. But it will not last forever. I claim that we will detect new supernovae and the time distances between the neutrino and photon fronts will be directly proportional to the distances. It will be the proof that neutrinos emitted by supernovae indeed are superluminal.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Well, so long as he stays in the "Fringe" section I think even that is a waste of time. Best thing would be to just ignore him, like the rest of the scientific community does.

Well since I'm the moderator in the main physics & maths subforum I can assure you it won't leak into there.

As for ignoring him, I think pretty much the entire thread is just him posting monologues and me occasionally pointing out nonsense. This recent flurry of activity from yourself is the most attention he's got in probably years here.

Same story back then. When the news first broke Sylwester was all over the Internet boasting how he "predicted" superluminal neutrinos. When it later turned out that the result was due to technical errors, he made up some silly excuse about only some of them being superluminal, and those note being directly observable, or some such thing. Typical.

Yes, such is the way with pseudoscientists. It shows how Sylwester makes his 'results' say anything he wants, always retroactively matching numerical values precisely only to them come up with an excuse when it transpires those values change due to new data. Under his name he still has "Neutrino speed is 1.00005c > c".

I think the fact he calls his work the 'everlasting theory' but has to keep modifying it says it all.

There were the superluminal neutrinos. Next, there was the attact on the experimental results. And what? At once all superluminal neutrinos disappeared. It is a politics. But it will not last forever.

Paranoid conspiracy theorist too.

 

[Markus Hanke]

It is not true that non-relativistic free protons and neutrons consist of relativistic quarks.

There is the core of baryons that internal structure follows indirectly from the Kasner solution

Our early Universe arose inside the cosmic torus as a loop.

the cosmic torus transformed into the dark energy

The phase transition described in point 4 caused the exit of the early Universe from the black-hole state.

But the age of the dark energy is about 21 billion years.

expansion that follows from decays of the entangled photons and from disappearance of the entanglement of photons with dark matter

Oh dear. How much more meaningless gibberish will we have to endure ?
Well, at least these posts are always good for a laugh

 

[Markus Hanke]

weak decays take place inside baryons

Ha ! Another gem

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Why don't we get Rpenner in here to see what the reason was, rather than you giving your version of events since, as we've all seen many times before, you're not above misrepresenting me in a thread I am in.

Rpenner will not do it because he sent to me letter in which is the true reason why I was banned. In my opinion, rpenner is honest.

AlphaNumeric, you are big liar and dishonest person. It is just awful that such person as you is tolerated on many Forums.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Oh dear. How much more meaningless gibberish will we have to endure ?
Well, at least these posts are always good for a laugh

I proved after 3 years that AlphaNumeric wrote the nonsensical posts concerning the pseudorapidity density. Just my simple formula

X = sqrt(sqrt(E[TeV]/0.2))

is consistent with all experimental data. I predicted them!

The same will be with your nonsensical posts.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, you are a liar. I always claimed that the superluminal neutrinos appear ONLY when the weak decays take place inside baryons.

Hm. This thread would suggest otherwise :

http://www.thescienceforum.com/new-hypotheses-ideas/26090-foundations-string-m-theory-2.html

Refer to post #26 ( quote ) :

Closed strings the neutrinos consist of (speed >> c)
Neutrinos from the weak decays INSIDE THE STRONG FIELDS, i.e. inside the baryons (speed > c i.e. speed is only insignificantly higher than the speed of light c)

which suggest that not just "weak decay" neutrinos move at superluminal speeds, but all other neutrinos as well.

I claim that in the repeated OPERA experiment (May, 2012) we obtain the same values for the superluminal speeds of neutrinos

That claim turned out to be false, clearly debunking your prediction of superluminal "weak decay" neutrinos.

 

[Markus Hanke]

This recent flurry of activity from yourself is the most attention he's got in probably years here.

You are right, it was probably a mistake to kick this off again. Let's consign it to everlasting oblivion.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you do not understand what you are reading. I always claimed that the superluminal neutrinos are produced only due to the weak decays inside baryons i.e. inside the strong fields. All my calculations show that it is true because the superluminal neutrinos are produced DUE TO THE ATOM-LIKE STRUCTURE OF BARYONS. If not the atom-like structure then we never could see the superluminal neutrinos.

Number density of the produced superluminal neutrinos, i.e. number of the superluminal neutrinos in relation to all neutrinos, increases with energy. The number density is highest for supernovae because during the explosions the strong fields are tangent or they partially overlap.

Just you should read my book or all my posts concerning the superluminal neutrinos.

I wrote that after the attack, the ALL superluminal neutrinos disappeared. For example, in the ICARUS experiment, on base of AS MANY AS SEVEN NEUTRINOS!!!!!, there was the conclusion that superluminal neutrinos are not in existence. Probability that among the 7 neutrinos were the superluminal neutrinos is practically equal to zero. Just it is the joyous scientific "production". It is the reason that I wrote something about politics in particle physics.