Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Provocations are widespread in politics but in physics as well...

The matter-mind asymmetry follows from the torus-circle asymmetry but the matter and the mental structures are built of the same elements i.e. of the Einstein-spacetime components.

 

[AlexG]

Sylwester's everlasting thread.

I am ONLY the best physicist....in my own mind.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Here

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

you can find my new paper “Cosmic Neutrino Background”.

In this paper, on base of the new cosmology described within the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, the temperature and the energy density in radiation concerning the cosmic neutrino background is precisely estimated in two different ways. The presented new neutrino-like physics leads to N(effective) equal to 3.39 and this result is consistent with the Planck-spacecraft 2013 results. In the new neutrino-like physics appears some analog to the pseudo-Goldstone boson and the classical-quantum time asymmetry that causes that unification of the General Theory of Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics within the same methods is impossible. The new cosmology shows that the inflation was separated in time from the observed expansion of the Universe.

I showed that there is some analogy between the neutrino plasma, that were produced in the era of inflation, and the baryonic plasma described within the Everlasting Theory in my book (see the link listed above).

 

[origin]

Here

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

you can find my new paper “Cosmic Neutrino Background”.

Ah yes viXra; the arXiv for pseudoscience dunderheads.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Origin, you proved many times that you are a dunce. You write the nonsensical posts to increase the number of posts.
There are the good and wrong papers and you can find them in all archives.

My paper, http://vixra.org/abs/1212.0104 , concerning the Higgs mass (it follows from my Everlasting Theory) is cited in arxiv by Professor from the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen, Denmark.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The very short history of our cosmos is as follows.

1.
A collision of big internally structureless (so internally timeless) pieces of space caused the granulation of space. There appeared the very small superluminal pieces of space i.e. the tachyons. The tachyon gas is the modified Higgs field that causes that particles acquire their gravitational mass.
2.
Due to the two first phase transitions of the modified Higgs field there appeared the binary systems of closed strings that are responsible for the entanglement and, next, from them the neutrinos. The gravitational constant G is defined by the properties of the neutrinos and the modified Higgs field. The neutrinos have gravitational mass due to their internal helicity that transforms the chaotic motions in the modified Higgs field into the divergently moving tachyons. The collisions create the gravitational field.
3.
Next, there was expansion of the neutrino plasma i.e. expansion of the maximally packed neutrinos. Such expansion transformed the neutrinos into the neutrino-antineutrino pairs, i.e. there appeared the Einstein spacetime. It is very difficult to detect the components of the Einstein spacetime because their speed is equal to the c and cannot change. We can detect the photons i.e. the rotational energies of the Einstein-spacetime components.
4.
The observed particles are the free neutrinos or they consist of the Einstein-spacetime components and neutrinos. Due to the Einstein spacetime, the particles composed of the entangled Einstein-spacetime components, for example electrons, can disappear in one place and appear in another one and so on. Due to the entanglement, the same concerns the photons. It leads to the Quantum Mechanics. But there as well are the stable structures composed of the entangled Einstein-spacetime components as, for example, the core of baryons - they are the classical objects. I must emphasize that TODAY the free neutrinos and the free (i.e. not entangled) neutrino-antineutrino pairs, the ground state of the Einstein spacetime consists of, are the classical particles as well. In the classical core of baryons arise the quantum loops responsible for the strong interactions. In my newest paper I proved that the classical time is going in different way than the quantum time inside the core of baryons i.e. there is the classical-quantum time asymmetry. It causes that unification of the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics within the same methods is impossible. It is possible only partially due to my modified string/M theory that follows from the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field.

Presented above the foundations of my Everlasting Theory is consistent with the Planck-spacecraft 2013 data. More details you can find in my book and 14 papers.

Some very important conclusions
1.
There are the two spacetimes i.e. the modified Higgs field responsible for the gravitational interactions and the Einstein spacetime responsible for the electromagnetic, strong and weak interactions.
2.
The Quantum Mechanics cannot be in existence without the superluminal entanglement.
3.
Weak interactions follow from the confinement defined by structure of neutrinos.
Our cosmos consists of tachyons, closed strings and neutrinos.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Sylwester's everlasting thread.

It's like a giant sugar lollipop. Full of sugary goodness.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Here

http://rxiv.org/author/sylwester_kornowski

you can find my newest paper titled
“The Origin of the Cosmos and the Classical-Quantum Asymmetry”.

On base of the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, the most fundamental laws of physics are formulated. The physical properties of the fundamental spacetime lead to conclusion that only selected mathematical formulae and equations can be realized by Nature and it concerns all possible cosmoses. Here, I described the exit from the inflation. The Einstein spacetime is the quantum-time liquid-crystal in the energetically-nonstationary but mass-ground-state. I calculated the mass and the today and initial radii of our Cosmos and pointed the phenomena in the era of inflation responsible for the classical-quantum asymmetry. All the broken symmetries and the 6(7) types of interactions appeared due to the succeeding phase transitions of the inflating field so there is not in existence an unification energy. A simulation of our Cosmos by a quantum computer is impossible.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Still publishing on hack sites, can't get a journal to accept your work? Says it all.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have no time for nonsensical "discussion". This Section is titled "Alternative Theories".

You still show your break-down.

BTW, here

www.symmetrymagazine.org/science-topics/neutrinos

in the newest paper we can read as follows.

"The observation of neutrinoless double beta decay would suggest that, by itself, the Standard Model Higgs cannot give mass to neutrinos."

It is consistent with my Everlasting Theory. I described the modified Higgs mechanism.

 

[origin]

Good god not this again. I thought you said you would go away when they showed that neutrinos are not superluminal, and yet you are still here and even have the fallacy of superluminal neutrinos as your quote.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

www.symmetrymagazine.org/science-topics/neutrinos

in the newest paper we can read as follows.

"The observation of neutrinoless double beta decay would suggest that, by itself, the Standard Model Higgs cannot give mass to neutrinos."

It is consistent with my Everlasting Theory. I described the modified Higgs mechanism.

1. That isn't a paper, it is a short note about some aspect of particle physics.
2. A magazine is not a journal, there is no peer review
3. Neutrino-less double beta decay has not yet been observed, the link is purely about if the process exists then there is an addition needed to the Standard Model. That is why it is of note and written about, it is something particle physicists go looking for where it should be (if it exists), as it represents an important test of the Standard Model. Such a process occurs if the neutrino is a Majorana fermion (a technical concept you're too stupid to grasp), which is currently unsettled.

Well done, you cannot read your own links. You're so smart Once again shows you haven't got a clue about what particle physics actually involves, you just delude yourself into thinking things are as you want them to be. Origin's comment about your "Neutrinos are superluminal!!" claim illustrates another example.

 

[AlexG]

Sylwester's Everlasting Gobstopper.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

My opponents prove that their heads are empty. Where are yours scientific arguments? Why I must answer still the same questions concerning, for example, the neutrino speed?

We need the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, to eliminate the tremendous number of the nonsensical assumptions and interpretations in the mainstream theories.

The last basic problem is whether the time translation symmetry can be broken. I described this problem in my newest paper. The Everlasting Theory proves that the Einstein spacetime is the quantum-time liquid crystal in energetically-nonstationary but mass-ground-state. Due to the superluminal entanglement (the entanglement is the foundations of the quantum physics), such state does not violate the law of conservation of energy. The Einstein-spacetime components are moving with the speed of light but their mass is non-relativistic i.e. their mass does not depend on speed. Since the mainstream theories neglect this property so there appears the nonsensical conclusion that the law of conservation of energy can be not valid because of the broken time translation symmetry.

The constancy of the mass of the Einstein-spacetime components leads to the superluminal neutrinos that were observed in the supernova SN 1987A explosion.

Some scientists claim that the observed time-distance between the neutrino and photon fronts follows from the dynamics of the exploding supernova but such dynamics leads to a remnant/neutron-star that is not observed. On the other hand, my model based on the superluminal neutrinos proves that we should not observe a neutron star i.e. my model is consistent with the observational facts. Moreover, I described the mistakes in planning of the repeated MINOS, OPERA and ICARUS experiments that lead to the wrong conclusion that the neutrinos cannot be superluminal.

The Everlasting Theory shows as well that the double beta decay is impossible. Experimentalists waste their time because they neglect the lacking part of ultimate theory. The same concerns, for example, the gravitational waves.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I added to my last paper (see #468) new paragraph titled
“The fate of the Cosmos and universes”.

In the paragraph I answered following questions:

Why collapse of the Einstein spacetime is impossible?

Can we estimate number of universes in our Cosmos?

Why our Cosmos is flat?

BTW
The very different long-distance interactions lead to conclusion that there are two parallel spacetimes. The Lacking Part of ultimate theory shows that the physical constants depend on properties of the two spacetimes. It means that the spacetimes cannot expand! Our Cosmos, i.e. the two spacetimes as well, must have a boundary impervious to the two spacetimes. Within the Everlasting Theory I calculated the size of our Cosmos – it is in my newest paper.

Can the boundary of our Cosmos be destroyed (see the paper)?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Due to the superluminal entanglement (the entanglement is the foundations of the quantum physics),

No, it is a corollary of the $$L^{1}$$ Hilbert space formalisation, rather than a foundation of it.

The constancy of the mass of the Einstein-spacetime components leads to the superluminal neutrinos that were observed in the supernova SN 1987A explosion.

Except such neutrinos were not superluminal in the relativistic v>c sense, they are faster than light through interstellar dust clouds, much like Chernkov radiation in water.

Moreover, I described the mistakes in planning of the repeated MINOS, OPERA and ICARUS experiments that lead to the wrong conclusion that the neutrinos cannot be superluminal.

They do not show neutrinos cannot be, only that no experimental data exists in contradiction to the premise they are sub-luminal.

The Everlasting Theory shows as well that the double beta decay is impossible. Experimentalists waste their time because they neglect the lacking part of ultimate theory. The same concerns, for example, the gravitational waves.

As I explained in my last post the neutrinoless double beta decay provides an opportunity for the Standard Model to be tested. If we see a decay the SM needs altering, just as if we had not seen the Higgs it would need to be altered. The fact experiments are being done show physicists want to try to find problems with their work. A similar thing went on with proton decays, as the observation of a proton decay would suggest the existence of super massive particles outside the scope of the SM. No such decays were observed and so the SM passed that particular test, up to a point.

Within the Everlasting Theory I calculated the size of our Cosmos – it is in my newest paper.

You don't have "papers", such terminology implies it has scientific merit. You have essays on your own pet theory, all of which have failed to be published by reputable journals.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

No, it is a corollary of the $$L^{1}$$ Hilbert space formalisation, rather than a foundation of it.

...rather...?

Except such neutrinos were not superluminal in the relativistic v>c sense, they are faster than light through interstellar dust clouds, much like Chernkov radiation in water.

Can you prove it? Can you prove that my interpretation is incorrect?

As I explained in my last post the neutrinoless double beta decay provides an opportunity for the Standard Model to be tested. If we see a decay the SM needs altering, just as if we had not seen the Higgs it would need to be altered. The fact experiments are being done show physicists want to try to find problems with their work. A similar thing went on with proton decays, as the observation of a proton decay would suggest the existence of super massive particles outside the scope of the SM. No such decays were observed and so the SM passed that particular test, up to a point.

Yes, today, due to the negative results, the SM needs altering.

You don't have "papers", such terminology implies it has scientific merit. You have essays on your own pet theory, all of which have failed to be published by reputable journals.

The Everlasting Theory leads to the physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data. No one of the mainstream theories can do it so can you prove that my book and papers have not scientific merit?

AlphaNumeric, why in your posts there is lack of scientific arguments?

 

[origin]

AlphaNumeric, why in your posts there is lack of scientific arguments?

The problem appears to be you inability to comprehend what AlphaNumeric is posting.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

...rather...?

I made a typo, it should be $$L^{2}$$. But I'm sure you knew that given how you claim to be familiar with quantum field theory...

Can you prove it? Can you prove that my interpretation is incorrect?

I'll rephrase : the claim of yours that superluminal neutrinos were observed from said supernova is not a foregone conclusions, as you present it to be. There exist models which explain the data and which have the neutrinos as subluminal.

I find it funny you jump on me saying "Oh yeah? Can you prove me wrong?" when I challenge you but you have no problem challenging the mainstream while ignoring how there are explanations in contradiction to your claim. Hypocrisy thy name is Sylwester.

Yes, today, due to the negative results, the SM needs altering.

No such negative results exist. Can you provide any from a reputable source? Given you cannot even read magazine websites properly, as illustrated a few posts up on this very page, I question your ability to read current literature on the state of particle physics.

The Everlasting Theory leads to the physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data. No one of the mainstream theories can do it so can you prove that my book and papers have not scientific merit?

You know full well I have explained a fundamental inconsistency with your work, namely your denouncement of the SM while simultaneously claiming to have accurately predicted the value of physical parameters whose extraction from experimental data presently depends upon the use of the SM. Your inability to retort this fundamental flaw, despite a number of years passing since I pointed it out to you, is sufficient.

AlphaNumeric, why in your posts there is lack of scientific arguments?

1. You wouldn't recognise scientific arguments even if they get you a prostate check. 2. Threads started by you to spew nonsense about your delusions of competency are hardly places I'm going to post scientific work. 3. The scientific research I undertake as a professional researcher is covered under NDAs and the like. 4. You're too stupid to understand actual science anyway.

 

[Undefined]

Hi guys, in an impartial attempt to short circuit further personality and politics exchanges from days of old, I would like to ask if the following statement/claim by Sylwester Kornowski is true or not:

The Everlasting Theory leads to the physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data. No one of the mainstream theories can do it...

So, can anyone qualified in this aspect please compare and report on the absolute/comparative effectiveness of the current theories and the absolute/comparative effectiveness of Sylwester's theory insofar as the "physical constants and hundreds results consistent or very close to experimental data" is concerned?


Gotta go vote! Back tomorrow! Bye all. Play nice.