Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[rpenner]

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.

See http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27448

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.

Kornowski, who self-describes himself as a convicted "rap[ist]", is incorrect when he uses the adjective caddish to describe actions motivated by principles and a sense of honor. It's rather stupid to cite this examples to two viewers of your thread who share many of the same principles (reality matters, brutal honesty is more useful than sycophantic lying, numerology is no model, ...).
For context, I first present my post that explained how you were wrong parsing a news article: http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27419&view=findpost&p=446480 (Feb 10 2010)

You can't cite a press release that doesn't mention QCD to accuse QCD of being wrong.

Here's an actual scientific paper from Roland, Busza, and too many others to count containing LHC collider data at new energies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0621

And here is the actual highlighted result (Feb 15 2010, as edited):

The increase of (28.4 ± 1.4 ± 2.6)% from 0.9 to 2.36 TeV is significantly larger than the 18.5% (14.5%) increase predicted by the PYTHIA (PHOJET) model tunes used in this analysis.

The "model" turns out to be a phenomenological fit, and not QCD.

And here is the sanitized post you imported by reference:

Below you can find my theoretical response to the new LHC experimental data:

Here's an actual scientific paper from Roland, Busza, and too many others to count containing LHC collider data at new energies.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1002.0621

I even do not try to send the obtained beautiful theoretical results, i.e. consistent with the new LHC data, to a journal because the scientific boards do not love my theory based on the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime (1997) and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions leading to the atom-like structure of baryons (1985). You can see that consistency of my theoretical results obtained in the paper titled “Pseudorapidity density in pp collisions” (I wrote it between 11 and 15 February 2010) with the new LHC data are perfect. You can see that the applied mechanisms are very simple in comparison with the mechanisms applied in the quark-gluon theory. All can see that my calculations are mathematically very simple. Soon, on my website [Moderator: SPAM URL DELETED] will appear the extended version of my book containing also the below paper and explanation why the Type Ia supernovae are fainter than they should be. I explained why the ‘observed’ acceleration of expansion of the Universe is an illusion.

Pseudorapidity density in pp collisions

Copyright © 2010 by Sylwester Kornowski
All rights reserved
To obtain permission for publication please contact eterion@tstd.pl

[Moderator: DELETED! You don't get to pick the rights. You already licensed those rights to PhysOrg -- read the terms of service. To save grief, I'm deleting your pseudoscientific rape of logic where you invent new numbers to multiply together to get someone else's preexisting numerical data point. The goal, in case you haven't been paying attention, is to generate one formula that correctly the outcome at all energies and then get the ratio by dividing the value of that function at two points. ]

[Moderator: Suspended 20 days for self-publishing of pre-formatted posts, and abuse of fonts.]

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?

You just used "caddish" twice. If you mean "unprincipled", then please list at least three "principles" science forum moderators should have that you find missing. If you mean "dishonorable", then you are dealing with an abstract perception, difficult to quantify. Moderators, as the elected agents to receive power from the forum owners, are obviously in an exalted position of power and thus honorable in a sense identified by Johnson in his 1755 dictionary. Likewise, if honor is virtuous conduct, by our shared principles science forum moderators who criticize and restrict your posting privileges for similar reasons are demonstrating a definition of virtuous conduct exists that perhaps you lack the ability to perceive. And if you are going for some nonsense about nobility of soul or "scorn of meanness", then you must pity us our sense of duty which causes us to act as volunteer bouncers and cops -- professions where meanness is applied in a manner to provide mutually agreed benefits. (Read the terms of service!)

Also you were not banned for any formula, but for a pattern of behavior,as petitioned by AlphaNumeric http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27448&view=findpost&p=449965 (March 9, 2010):

Can't we just get Sylwester banned now? All he does is just copy and paste a paragraph of his ignorant propaganda, make straw men because he's failed to understand something in the media and ask the same questions over and over because he's either too stupid to have understood the answer the first time or refuses to accept it due to bias. He adds nothing to any discussion since he knows nothing and no one wants to listen to his crap about his work which is the culmination of wasting decades of his life.

which resulted in the moderation action: "Mar 10 2010, 03:38 AM: Banned for excessive delusions and failure to connect with fellow human beings."

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.

How is it a prediction when I supplied you with the data before you started work?

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. ...
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.

Other than this invitation, I would feel uncomfortable in dragging posts from 2010 on another forum to this one.

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.

I think that's a terrible prediction, in that I don't recall sending you any private communication other than the March 10 final action, and I don't see how honesty makes me less likely to appear in a thread which is mentioning me by name and citing my past actions.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Rpenner, I asumed incorrectly that you are a honest man.

See http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=27448

Yes, you deleted my post. There was the derivation of the formula (161) that is in my book. This formula leads DIRECTLY to following formula

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

This formula is consistent with all experimental data. Do you claim that I did not derive it on the base of the atom-like structure of baryons? Do you indeed claim that it is numerology? Can you prove it? Of course, you are unable. You probably are unable even define what the word "numerology" means.

You write the obvious untrue. Just you are dishonest. For me, the cited by myself your words are caddish. Your last post is caddish as well. You write about your sentences that appeared in my thread on PhysOrg whereas I wrote about the private messages.

I should not write about your private messages to me. I did not delete them. They still should be on PhysOrg. You should read them once more.

But now it is obvious for me that you are dishonest as well.

You cited AlphaNumeric: "Can't we just get Sylwester banned now?"

He wrote that he never insisted to ban me!!! Rpenner, did he insist to ban me?

 

[Markus Hanke]

This is becoming more and more of a farce. Was it not you who said that

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

Yet in the Opera experiment the neutrinos do not originate from baryons. They are the result of weak meson decay, and mesons are not baryons as anyone with some basic knowledge in particle physics realizes. However, you then go on to say that

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.

So, on the one hand you claim that superluminal neutrinos can only originate from baryons, and then on the other hand you "predicted" that OPERA was going to find superluminal neutrinos, even though the experimental setup did not even use baryons ?! What a complete joke.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, now you proved that you are the real dunce. What is origin of the neutrinos?

You know, the CNGS beam was produced by accelerating protons. There was the graphite neutrino production target.

You know, the protons and neutrons are the baryons as well.
Your compromitation is tremendous.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The results from ALICE show that the “quark”-gluon plasma produced at the LHC is still strongly coupled i.e. they show that at very high energies there is still the liquid-like plasma, NOT GAS-LIKE plasma as it follows from the mainstream asymptotic freedom.

The Everlasting Theory shows that due to the cores of baryons, the plasma will be the liquid-like plasma for the higher and higher energies as well. Just the Everlasting Theory shows that there is the asymptote for the coupling “constant” 0.1139. See my paper on vixra titled “The Reformulated Asymptotic Freedom”.

I wrote the above a few sentences because I assume that soon will appear the new results for the alpha_strong for energies 2.76 TeV and 5.02 TeV. I predict that the alpha_strong will be very close to 0.114.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, now you proved that you are the real dunce. What is origin of the neutrinos?

You know, the CNGS beam was produced by accelerating protons. There was the graphite neutrino production target.

You know, the protons and neutrons are the baryons as well.
Your compromitation is tremendous.

I'm afraid you are getting only half the story - what happens is that protons get fired at a carbon target first. The resulting interaction between the high speed protons and the carbon atoms produce pions and kaons, which then spontaneously decay into muons and neutrinos through a weak decay process. Now, both pions and kaons are mesons, not baryons.

So you are wrong - the neutrinos in that experiment do not originate from baryons, but from weak meson decay. Here is the paper describing all of this in detail :

http://arxiv.org/pdf/1109.4897v4.pdf

See bottom of page 3, and upper half of page 4.

Now Sylwester, in the light of the above referenced paper, would you like to explain again exactly how those neutrinos originated from baryons ?

 

[Markus Hanke]

See my paper on vixra

Enough said.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you try to be right but you are not. I wrote in my post #420 as follows.

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.

So once more: The superluminal neutrinos are produced ONLY when the weak decays of the muons or pions or W bosons TAKE PLACE INSIDE THE BARYONS. Quantum physics proves that lifetime of the muons or pions or W bosons is broadened. This means that these particles can decay already inside the baryons but the OPERA experiment was planned in such a way that they most frequently decayed outside the strong fields so practically all neutrinos were the luminal neutrinos. It is the reason that I criticised scientific value of the ICARUS experiment.

Markus, I have no time for nonsensical discussion. If you want to discuss the superluminal neutrinos, you at first should read all my posts concerning this problem. I wrote many times that to obtain high number density for superluminal neutrinos we must carry out an experiment in such a way the probability of the weak decays of muons or/and pions or/and W bosons INSIDE BARYONS was very high. Such conditions are in the explosions of the supernovae so I claim that the time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts detected on Earth for the supernova SN 1987A follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos.

All explanations and calculations you can find in my book but I can see that you are lazy.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Markus, you try to be right but you are not. I wrote in my post #420 as follows.



So once more: The superluminal neutrinos are produced ONLY when the weak decays of the muons or pions or W bosons TAKE PLACE INSIDE THE BARYONS. Quantum physics proves that lifetime of the muons or pions or W bosons is broadened. This means that these particles can decay already inside the baryons but the OPERA experiment was planned in such a way that they most frequently decayed outside the strong fields so practically all neutrinos were the luminal neutrinos. It is the reason that I criticised scientific value of the ICARUS experiment.

Markus, I have no time for nonsensical discussion. If you want to discuss the superluminal neutrinos, you at first should read all my posts concerning this problem. I wrote many times that to obtain high number density for superluminal neutrinos we must carry out an experiment in such a way the probability of the weak decays of muons or/and pions or/and W bosons INSIDE BARYONS was very high. Such conditions are in the explosions of the supernovae so I claim that the time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts detected on Earth for the supernova SN 1987A follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos.

All explanations and calculations you can find in my book but I can see that you are lazy.

What you said is this :

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

The superluminal neutrinos are produced ONLY when the weak decays of the muons or pions or W bosons TAKE PLACE INSIDE THE BARYONS.

Yet the OPERA experiment neutrinos do not originate from baryons. Your nonsense about these particles "already decaying inside baryons" is simply hogwash; there are no mesons "inside" baryons. And that from someone claiming to be a physicist !

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you proved that you are incompetent and tremendously dishonest. I will not discuss with such persons. Just I have no time for incompetent “discussion”.

So once more: In my previous posts you can find, for example, following sentences.
“Only wrongly planned experiment can lead to conclusion that neutrinos from weak decays inside strong field are not superluminal.”
“If we change the initial conditions in such way that there will DOMINATE the neutrinos from the weak decays OUTSIDE the strong fields then the neutrinos will not be the superluminal particles.”

I will not write the same sentences many times only because you are lazy.

Now you wrote that the carriers of the strong interactions between nucleons, i.e. pions (they are the mesons as well), are not produced inside the strong fields of baryons. Do you claim that they arise outside the strong fields? Did you read something about the hadronization? Do you claim that the W bosons are not produced in the weak interactions inside baryons? The mesons are produced inside baryons but due to the broadened lifetime, sometimes they decay outside the strong and weak fields.

The Everlasting Theory shows that baryons consist of the core that is responsible for the strong (the torus) and weak interactions (the ball in centre of the torus). There arise the bosons on surface of the core of baryons. Their symmetrical decays lead to the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions (R = A + Bd; A/B = 1.3898). The d = 4 is the last state (there is the proof) so range of the strong interactions is about 2.9 fm. In the d = 1 state there is the relativistic pion. This pion is under the Schwarzschild surface for the strong interactions so the proton is the stable baryon. Such model leads to results that overlap or are very close to the experimental data. On the other hand, there is the quark model within which we cannot calculate the masses of the nucleons since 1964 !!!!!!!!

For example, the charged pion in the d = 1 state in neutron can decay ALREADY IN THE d = 1 STATE into the neutral pion, electron and electron antineutrino. This causes that there is the beta decay of the neutron i.e. the neutron decays into proton, electron and electron antineutrino.

Recapitulation
The Everlasting Theory PROVES (it is because this theory leads to experimental data ONLY) that inside nucleons is the relativistic pion but even the mainstream theories LEAD TO THE HADRONIZATION INSIDE BARYONS.

This means that you once more proved your incompetence.

 

[Markus Hanke]

“Only wrongly planned experiment can lead to conclusion that neutrinos from weak decays inside strong field are not superluminal.”
“If we change the initial conditions in such way that there will DOMINATE the neutrinos from the weak decays OUTSIDE the strong fields then the neutrinos will not be the superluminal particles.”

And yet you also wrote this :

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

which is clearly a contradiction.

Now you wrote that the carriers of the strong interactions between nucleons, i.e. pions (they are the mesons as well), are not produced inside the strong fields of baryons.

As usual you are completely missing the point, because the issue at stake is not the origin of the pions/kaons, but of the neutrinos. Now, pions and kaons have a mean lifetime of 2.6ns and 1.2ns respectively, therefore they decay some distance from their point of origin. In fact that distance is about 500m given the energy levels and the setup of the CGNS beam, and thus pretty substantial. It is at this point, inside the decay tube, that they decay into muons and neutrinos through weak interactions. This process has no connection whatsoever to hadronization, or the strong force between nucleons. There aren't any nucleons in the decay tube, just free accelerated pions and kaons which are focused in a narrow beam through two helium chambers to minimize mutual interactions. Therefore the neutrinos originate from the weak decay of these mesons, and not from any process inside baryons.

I urge you again to study the schematic of the beam line on page 4 of the document I referenced. It is pretty clear there. Don't try to muddle the waters by attempting to sidetrack the discussion to concepts which are irrelevant to this experimental setup. The fact remains that you claimed that the repeat OPERA experiment was going to show superluminal neutrinos ( which it didn't ), and you also claimed that is so because the weak decays take place inside baryons ( which is wrong ). With these you proved that you have no understanding of the physics behind these, and that your "predictions" are mere numerology.

This means that you once more proved your incompetence.

You may as well save yourself the trouble of typing comments like this, because I have long ago stopped caring about the opinions of cranks and crackpots like yourself. They are a reflection on yourself much more so than an insult to me.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, it is obvious that when you are not right then you write the nonsensical posts.

You wrote the same as rpenner that my theory looks as numerology. It is typical for incompetent persons. Just you write a claim without substantiation. An honest person should write a definition of the numerology and should show what methods are applied in the numerology. Then, the honest person should prove that I apply the same methods. But you and rpenner behave as fanatics.

You did not answer my questions so I will write them once more. You wrote as follows.

…. there are no mesons "inside" baryons….

Discussion with person who writes such nonsensical words is impossible. Just you once more proved that you are a dunce.

So my questions are as follows.
Now you wrote that the carriers of the strong interactions between nucleons, i.e. pions (they are the mesons as well), are not produced inside the strong fields of baryons. Do you claim that they arise outside the strong fields? Did you read something about the hadronization? Do you claim that the W bosons are not produced in the weak interactions inside baryons?

The answers to these questions are very important because you completely do not understand the problem. Assume that you are able to admit that you wrote the obvious untrue and that neutrinos can be produced directly in the collisions of nucleons. There can be produced tremendous number of the superluminal neutrinos when the relativistic protons collide with the graphite target. This means that at least some not numerous superluminal neutrinos could be among the neutrinos from the weak decays outside the target. But most important is the fact that I wrote what conditions must be satisfied to detect the superluminal neutrinos. And I claim that when the future experiments will be planned correctly then we for certain will detect the superluminal neutrinos. I claim also that the measured central values of the not numerous superluminal neutrinos obtained in the original MINOS and OPERA experiments, i.e. respectively 1.00005c and 1.0000169c, are correct. It looks as if in the original OPERA experiment dominated the superluminal neutrinos. To such conclusion leads my theory (see Chapter “Neutrino Speed” in my book). I did not delete this Chapter because I claim that the obtained theoretical results are correct. They lead as well to the time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts for the supernova SN 1987A CONSISTENT WITH THE OBSERVATIONAL FACT. The presented theory of neutrinos and the calculations are very simple. If you claim that it is numerology then you should prove it. Of course, you are unable to do it.

So once more: My questions to you are as follows. Can neutrinos be produced DIRECTLY in the collisions of the nucleons? Are the hadrons produced in the weak and strong fields inside baryons? If you still claim that it is impossible then it is the end of the discussion.

 

[Markus Hanke]

Silly me - I was thinking that inputting some real physics into this thread would be of some use, but I was wrong. It is much like throwing pearls at a sow - a waste of time.

For the casual reader : see AlphaNumeric's and my own posts for the physics, and Sylwester's for several decades worth of delusions. It really is that simple.

If you still claim that it is impossible then it is the end of the discussion.

Since you are unable and unwilling to address the point in question, I agree that this discussion ends here and now. I'll leave you to your nonsense; so long as it stays out of the main sections it can safely remain ignored

 

[brucep]

Silly me - I was thinking that inputting some real physics into this thread would be of some use, but I was wrong. It is much like throwing pearls at a sow - a waste of time.

For the casual reader : see AlphaNumeric's and my own posts for the physics, and Sylwester's for several decades worth of delusions. It really is that simple.



Since you are unable and unwilling to address the point in question, I agree that this discussion ends here and now. I'll leave you to your nonsense; so long as it stays out of the main sections it can safely remain ignored

Kornowski Arithmetic Theory doesn't need 'nonsense' sections of public science forums to be universally ignored.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

All can see that many persons cannot discuss. There is lack of scientific arguments. There is lack of answers to my questions. They prove that they completely do not understand the particle physics and cosmology. They do not understand that tens of basic problems still are not solved.

Due to the properties of the neutrinos, a data analysis is very difficult. To produce neutrino beams with high number density of the superluminal neutrinos, the density of the collisions of nucleons must be sufficiently high. Data analysis could be very easy if the neutrinos were produced SIMULTANEOUSLY with photons. Then GPS system is not needed to measure the time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

There is lack of scientific arguments.

Which is your fault. Scientific discussion is for the main maths & physics forum or journals. Neither of which allows your work because it is fundamentally flawed. Go on, go look in that subforum, people over there can actually talk some science. The common factor in all your threads amounting to nonsense is you.

They prove that they completely do not understand the particle physics and cosmology.

Reality says otherwise. Which of us is published in reputable journals following peer review? Which of us has numerous qualifications in those domains? Which of us are paid to do research?

By every rational measure you're the one with the lack of understanding in those domains. The only way you can even try to claim otherwise is to redefine them, an act which you are not above doing many many times.

They do not understand that tens of basic problems still are not solved.

Where did any of us say otherwise? The fact your work is bullshit doesn't mean we think the current mainstream models are perfect. I fully expect the Standard Model's core of quantum field theory, as we know it now, to be replaced by something more powerful and broad as a means of understanding quantum gravity. That'll also then replace general relativity. I expect numerous new condensed matter models will be developed to replace the limited scope of things like BSC theory in superconductors or the crude applicability of graphene's two dimensional field theory.

I'm absolutely certain I know many more problems with the Standard Model then you because I actually know something about the Standard Model. The best way to see something flaws is to understand it, to know how to use it. You have no idea about mainstream physics, you have only lies you tell yourself, since no one else buys them.

Did you notice how the thread Rpenner linked to from PhysForum is more than 3 years old and we're still talking about the same utter failure of you to accomplish anything. Seriously, what have you done for the last 3 years? I hope to god (not that I believe in him) you have a job so you'll at least have done something constructive. The alternative is you've spent the last 3 years doing nothing of any merit.

You blame us for you not having a scientific discussion. You blame 'politics in science' for why your assertions have not be confirmed by experiment. You blame 'communism' and a 'lack of democracy' in the scientific community for your inability to get published. You are your own worst enemy because you are to blame for all of those. It happens in multiple threads at multiple sites, you are the common factor. Take some damn responsibility for once in your life and face up to that. You want to do something constructive? You want to have scientific discussions? You want to be taken seriously as a physicist and not considered a hack? Stop lying, stop blaming others and start learning actual science.

 

[Markus Hanke]

I fully expect the Standard Model's core of quantum field theory, as we know it now, to be replaced by something more powerful and broad as a means of understanding quantum gravity

I absolutely agree. I am not an expert in QFT by any stretch of the imagination, but I do know the main mathematical concepts, and I do understand the physical content behind it. It never sat quite right with me, something is not just missing, but fundamentally flawed. At least that is my personal opinion, and the vacuum catastrophe is a good indication that something is indeed very wrong.

Personally I would like to see quantum fields done away with altogether, and elementary particles to be understand as geometric constructs ( geons ? ) or topological defects in a discreet, quantized space-time, much like cracks in a sheet of ice. I am aware however that all attempts in those directions have met with massive difficulties and failures, but then again, it is an area of active research, maybe we are missing something very fundamental yet.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you compromised yourself. You wrote that mesons are not produced inside baryons and that neutrinos cannot be produced directly in the collisions of nucleons.

AlphaNumeric, you compromised yourself as well. You wrote that my simple formula for pseudorapidity density will be inconsistent with experimental data (you know, it is the 1.93 for sqrt(sNN) = 2.76 TeV). I predicted the theoretical results for the 5.02 TeV as well i.e. I proved that my Everlasting Theory is not made false by changing. So once more: My simple formula for RELATIVE PSEUDORAPIDITY DENSITY:

X = sqrt(sqrt(E[TeV]/0.2)) = (E[TeV]/0.2)^0.25

IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL EXPERIMENTAL DATA. It follows from the atom-like structure of baryons that contrary to the quark model leads to the masses of nucleons.

Moreover, you both do not understand the title of this Section and you both proved many times that you do not understand what you are reading. Just two incompetent persons - I proved it many times!!!!

Soon it will be obvious that my predictions for the alpha_strong at high energy are correct as well i.e. there will appear the asymptote 0.1139 i.e. my theory will prove that the mainstream asymptotic freedom is incorrect. There still will be the liquid-like plasma, not gas-like plasma defended by AlphaNumeric or scientists once more will make false by changing the mainstream QCD, for example, there probably will appear next free parameters or new mathematical tricks. Just it is the childish game. But it will not last for ever.
The last ALICE experiments show that there still is the liquid-like plasma what is consistent with my PREDICTIONS.

 

[Markus Hanke]

You wrote that mesons are not produced inside baryons and that neutrinos cannot be produced directly in the collisions of nucleons.

There is only person here who "compromised himself", and that's not me or AN.
As for the statement above, as usual you are trying to worm yourself out of having been shown wrong. This entire discussion was about the OPERA experiment; in the context of that experiment the neutrinos are not the result of "collisions of nucleons", they originate in the weak decay of mesons. Period. I have provided the link to show that this is true ( it even has a pretty little schematic in it, which, unfortunately, you seem unable to understand ), and your continued refusal to acknowledge that just serves as further confirmation of how much of a crackpot you really are. I never said that neutrinos cannot be produced during collisions of nucleons, what I said is that this is not what is happening in this experiment.

This discussion ends here. I have provided ( and referenced ! ) the physics, you keep vomitting your delusions all over the place while demonstrating a complete absence of even a basic understanding of the principles involved in the OPERA setup. I am quite happy with this state of affairs, to be honest.

Good luck with being ignored by the scientific world.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Markus, you behave as a fanatic. So once more:
1.
Neutrinos moving with speed close to the speed of light are produced as well directly in the collisions of nucleons. Only such neutrinos can be superluminal.
2.
Neutrinos very weakly interact with the apparatus.
3.
In the collisions are produced as well the very relativistic muons and pions that decay to the neutrinos as well. They are the luminal neutrinos.
4.
The distance between the target and the place of the hadron stop was in the original OPERA experiment about 1.1 km i.e. the superluminal neutrinos and the very relativistic muons and pions need about 3*10^-6 s to approach the place of the hadron stop. On the other hand, each neutrino pulse sent to the Gran Sasso laboratory lasted about 10*10^-6 s i.e. about 3 times longer.

Recapitulation
It is obvious that the pulses of neutrinos must contain BOTH the luminal neutrinos from the decays of muons and pions and the superluminal neutrinos produced directly in the collisions of the nucleons.

Only very weak thinker is unable to understand the above series of simple sentences.
I should not discuss with fanatics.