Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

The spacetime is not continuous. It causes that the relativistic formula for redshift
v/c = (zz + 2z)/(zz + 2z + 2) is incorrect. Within the Everlasting Theory I proved that applying the above incorrect formula we obtain for z < 0.6415 that expansion of the Universe accelerates whereas for z > 0.6415 decelerated. It is very close to the experimental data – see my papers.

I wrote many times that generally neutrinos are the non-relativistic particles moving with speed of light in vacuum c. But in specific interactions they can have speed a little higher than the c. The superluminal neutrinos appear in weak decays INSIDE STRONG FIELDS ONLY. But such neutrinos were eliminated in the later experiments.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
For a half of century there is assumed that masses of protons and neutrons follow from the relativistic masses of three valence quarks. But within such model we cannot calculate exact masses, magnetic moments and spins of the nucleons (for 50 years!)! And we teach this nonsense in universities. Of course, there are produced the quark-antiquark pairs but they appear only in the descriptions of interactions.

There were the superluminal neutrinos and then they disappeared….

There was the excess in Higgs decays to photons and then it disappeared, and so on….

Is such “physics” credible? Is there an end of honest particle physics?

Why the theories that were formulated after the World War II are such messy i.e. why theoretical physicists to fit their theoretical results to very frequently changing experimental data apply many approximations, many mathematical tricks and many free parameters? Who is responsible for such reality in the today scientific journals? The answer is very simple. There are three or four following reasons:
1.
The separation of the classical and quantum descriptions is a science fiction - in reality, Nature is the inseparable mixture of classical and quantum structures and it concerns a single particle as well.
2.
Assumption that there is only one definition of time for quantum effects or classical effects is wrong - in reality, different components of a particle “produce” simultaneously different definitions of time. The same concerns the creations and annihilations of pairs.
3.
It is not true that spacetime is continuous - I have written it in Internet since 2006.
4.
Corruption?
Click to expand...

Firstly let me come right out from the word go and inform you I aint no professional...in fact exactly opposite, that is an interesting amateur in these fields.
So my first remarks would be, if you [presumably a professional of sorts] have evidence that invalidates cosmological thinking of today, SR/GR or particle physics, or you have a model that better suits what we observe, why do you come to a forum such as this?
Granted we have some excellent people here who know what they are talking about, but I bet my short n curlies that if any of them thought they had evidence to show what you purport to be so, they would be having it properly peer reviewed.
Now dosn't that make sense? Coupling that good advice with the fact that 99.9% of the alternative theorists and their theories that post in this forum are generaly shown to be rather nutty to put it as simply as possible.

Some comments for what they are worth on your post....
Superluminal neutrinos?? What superluminal neutrinos?? Nothing with mass can ever attain "c" as far as I am aware.
There was some error a year or so ago where that possibility was thought to have been observed, but human error and/or technical errors was found to be at fault.

Is such “physics” credible? Is there an end of honest particle physics?
As an observer I see the scientific method as insuring that credibility in the end is generally achieved.
Afterall the peer review and scientific methodology system assures that science is open to all.
In my experience the only parties that would argue against that are the pseudoscience pushers who have had their alternative theories discarded. And of course our conspiracy nutters.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why the theories that were formulated after the World War II are such messy i.e. why theoretical physicists to fit their theoretical results to very frequently changing experimental data apply many approximations, many mathematical tricks and many free parameters? Who is responsible for such reality in the today scientific journals? The answer is very simple. There are three or four following reasons:
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Science/cosmology changes as we see further by standing on the shoulders of giants and with access to technically superior equipment. Sometimes those observations seem to on face value defy what we have previously viewed as common sense. SR/GR stand as testament to that fact as does BH's.
All I see since WW2 are incredible insights, great discoveries and outstanding revelations, and an exponential growth in our knowledge of cosmology and the Universe around us. Far from the messy, tricky situation that you propose.


Also the Universe did not just unexpectedly start accelerating.
It was more likely a gradual thing, that we did not perceive until the data from WMAP was forthcoming.
 
Assume that someone formulated theory that contains much less parameters than the Standard Model (the Everlasting Theory contains at least three times less parameters than the SM), describes phenomena that cannot be described within the SM (for example, phenomena that lead to the mass of electron or to the mass spectrum of quarks), gives much better results than the SM and leads to origin of the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics (it is impossible within the SM). Should such theory be published in scientific journals? The answer is very simple - of course, it should be. So why it is not published (it is published in Internet and all can read it and see that I wrote the honest truth)? It is because there is not democracy in theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology.

You wrote that no particle can be superluminal. It is untrue. You should read more. The modern physics assumes existence of the tachyons. It is not only in my theory. Such assumption leads to the best results and causes that we can answer the fundamental questions that cannot be answered within the SM.

Can you write and prove which my sentence is incorrect? Of course, you are unable to do it because there are only the incontrovertible facts. It is true that the initial conditions in the SM do not lead to the exact masses, magnetic moments and spins of the nucleons - theoretical physicists cannot do it since 1964. Why? It is because the initial conditions applied in the SM are wrong. Even laymen can see it. I assume that some day historians will describe this devilish period.

My theory leads to conclusion that the Universe expands but our Cosmos does not. It is the reason that the basic fundamental constants as the Planck constant and the gravitational constant do not depend on time - it should be in an expanding cosmos (since the end of the inflation the mean density of the Cosmos is constant). I calculated as well the radius and total mass of our Cosmos.

Why I discuss the Everlasting Theory here? Soon it will be the history of theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology. Just mankind should know that after the WW2 there were the Middle Ages in the theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Assume that someone formulated theory that contains much less parameters than the Standard Model (the Everlasting Theory contains at least three times less parameters than the SM), describes phenomena that cannot be described within the SM (for example, phenomena that lead to the mass of electron or to the mass spectrum of quarks), gives much better results than the SM and leads to origin of the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics (it is impossible within the SM). Should such theory be published in scientific journals? The answer is very simple - of course, it should be. So why it is not published (it is published in Internet and all can read it and see that I wrote the honest truth)? It is because there is not democracy in theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology.

You wrote that no particle can be superluminal. It is untrue. You should read more. The modern physics assumes existence of the tachyons. It is not only in my theory. Such assumption leads to the best results and causes that we can answer the fundamental questions that cannot be answered within the SM.

Can you write and prove which my sentence is incorrect? Of course, you are unable to do it because there are only the incontrovertible facts. It is true that the initial conditions in the SM do not lead to the exact masses, magnetic moments and spins of the nucleons - theoretical physicists cannot do it since 1964. Why? It is because the initial conditions applied in the SM are wrong. Even laymen can see it. I assume that some day historians will describe this devilish period.

My theory leads to conclusion that the Universe expands but our Cosmos does not. It is the reason that the basic fundamental constants as the Planck constant and the gravitational constant do not depend on time - it should be in an expanding cosmos (since the end of the inflation the mean density of the Cosmos is constant). I calculated as well the radius and total mass of our Cosmos.

Why I discuss the Everlasting Theory here? Soon it will be the history of theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology. Just mankind should know that after the WW2 there were the Middle Ages in the theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology.
Click to expand...

Idiot wind bullshit. Your theory never made it past the round file. You just choose to believe it did.
 
As usually you write the nonsensical posts. There are no scientific arguments. You are trolling. I proved many times in this thread that you completely do not understand the foundations of physics.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
You wrote that no particle can be superluminal. It is untrue. You should read more. The modern physics assumes existence of the tachyons.

.
Click to expand...


Bunkum... Modern physics does not assume the existence of Tachyons. They are simply a speculative scenario. And yes, I wrote there is no superluminal particle...That is a fact.

Sylwester Kornowski said:
My theory leads to conclusion that the Universe expands but our Cosmos does not
.
Click to expand...

???? That is just plain unadulterated gobbldydook.
You are in alternative theory section. Your alternative theories has been shown to be hogwash. It should now proceed to pseudoscience...then the cesspool.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
As usually you write the nonsensical posts. There are no scientific arguments. You are trolling. I proved many times in this thread that you completely do not understand the foundations of physics.
Click to expand...

No you have that arse up. I have only read a couple of your posts, but it is enough even for a layman such as myself, to see that you are pissing in the wind and making up fanciful scenarios....
If you had anything at all, even just an inkling of truth and evidence, you would not be here.
Again, your alternative rubbish has been refuted.....you should now go to pseudoscience then onto cesspool.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
As usually you write the nonsensical posts. There are no scientific arguments. You are trolling. I proved many times in this thread that you completely do not understand the foundations of physics.
Click to expand...

You need a brain transplant. Spewing nonsense and linking irrelevant vixra papers don't constitute a proof.
 
Why some people are such stupid? They “discuss” but they are too lazy to read the important information. For example, you should write in Google following words “tachyonic field”. Then, in Wikipedia you can find following paragraph:

“Tachyonic fields play a very important role in modern physics.
Perhaps the most famous example of a tachyon is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics. In its uncondensed phase, the Higgs field has a negative mass squared, and is therefore a tachyon.

The phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a central part in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg-Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity.

Other examples include the inflation field in certain models of cosmic inflation (such as new inflation), and the tachyon of bosonic string theory.”
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Why some people are such stupid? They “discuss” but they are too lazy to read the important information. For example, you should write in Google following words “tachyonic field”. Then, in Wikipedia you can find following paragraph:

“Tachyonic fields play a very important role in modern physics.
Perhaps the most famous example of a tachyon is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics. In its uncondensed phase, the Higgs field has a negative mass squared, and is therefore a tachyon.

The phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a central part in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg-Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity.

Other examples include the inflation field in certain models of cosmic inflation (such as new inflation), and the tachyon of bosonic string theory.”
Click to expand...

My, my - silly you! It also says:

"A tachyonic field, or simply tachyon, is a quantum field with an imaginary mass that represents an instability. The term "tachyon" was coined by Gerald Feinberg in a 1967 paper[1] that studied quantum fields with imaginary mass. Feinberg believed such fields permitted faster than light propagation, but it was soon realized that Feinberg's model in fact did not allow for superluminal speeds,[2] and instead that an imaginary mass causes an instability to a process known as tachyon condensation."
 
Why some people are such stupid? They “discuss” but they do not understand what they are reading.

It is obvious that the cosmic inflation is based on superluminal speeds. On the other hand, we can discuss the PROPERTIES of the tachyons. The instability does not mean that tachyonic field does not play a very important role in modern physics!
 
Some recapitulation is as follows.

Why I claim that in future the period from 1948 to, let us say, 2016 historians of science will call the Middle Ages in theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology? There are a few basic reasons.
1.
For a half of century there is assumed that masses of protons and neutrons follow from the relativistic masses of three valence quarks. But within such model we cannot calculate exact masses, magnetic moments and spins of the nucleons since 1964. Just this model is incorrect. Of course, there are produced the quark-antiquark pairs but they appear only in the descriptions of interactions. In reality, there is the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Everlasting Theory that leads to beautiful results. For example, contrary to the Standard Model the calculated mass of proton is 938.272…MeV.
2.
Physicists do not understand the quantum physics so they try to build a quantum computer based on the parallel worlds. In reality the separation of the classical and quantum descriptions is a science fiction - in reality, Nature is the inseparable mixture of classical and quantum structures and it concerns a single particle as well. This means that the interpretation of the quantum particles based on the parallel worlds is incorrect. Due to the SUPERLUMINAL QUANTUM ENTANGLEMENT there is simultaneously only one quantum world. So why some experimentalists claim that we can see simultaneously an electron in different places? It is because lifetime of electric charge of electron in some place is much shorter than the “exposure” time. Just spin and electric charge of an electron cannot be simultaneously in different places whereas its relativistic mass can be (see my papers). The same concerns the charged pions in baryons so in protons and neutrons as well (see my book).
Energy of an entangled photon is simultaneously in different places but due to the superluminal quantum entanglement there is simultaneously only one quantum state. Of course, the distribution of energy changes over time but there is still only one quantum state. Such entangled photon can behave as a wave but when some part of the entangled photon starts to interact with a detector then due to the superluminal quantum entanglement the all energy of the entangled photon appears in the place of interaction with the detector i.e. the wave behaves as a particle due to the superluminal quantum entanglement.
3.
Assumption that there is only one definition of time for quantum effects or classical effects is wrong. In reality, different components of a particle “produce” simultaneously different definitions of time. The same concerns the creations and annihilations of pairs.
4.
It is not true that spacetime is continuous.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
It is obvious that the cosmic inflation is based on superluminal speeds. On the other hand, we can discuss the PROPERTIES of the tachyons. The instability does not mean that tachyonic field does not play a very important role in modern physics!
Click to expand...

Cosmic Inflation can be superluminal....space/time has no mass and consequently is not defying any relativity assumptions.
Tachyons are only a speculative construct that have never been observed.
They play next to no role in present day physics.

The other trash that you keep posting, will I predict end up in the cesspool.
 
paddoboy said:
Cosmic Inflation can be superluminal....space/time has no mass and consequently is not defying any relativity assumptions.
Tachyons are only a speculative construct that have never been observed.
They play next to no role in present day physics.
The other trash that you keep posting, will I predict end up in the cesspool.
Click to expand...

Paddoboy, you wrote a few times about the cesspool - it looks as paranoia.

I proved that the tachyonic field play very important role in modern physics. I showed you where you can find the references. You should read it but I can see that you are too lazy. So once more:
“Tachyonic fields play a very important role in modern physics.
Perhaps the most famous example of a tachyon is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics. In its uncondensed phase, the Higgs field has a negative mass squared, and is therefore a tachyon.
The phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a central part in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg-Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity.
Other examples include the inflation field in certain models of cosmic inflation (such as new inflation), and the tachyon of bosonic string theory.”

On the other hand, you wrote a few nonsensical posts without scientific arguments.

Paddoboy, I have no time for your nonsensical “discussion”. Just you at first should read more. You completely do not understand physics. For example, you do not understand that there can be in existence physical objects that no one detector could “see” DIRECTLY.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
Paddoboy, you wrote a few times about the cesspool - it looks as paranoia.

I proved that the tachyonic field play very important role in modern physics. I showed you where you can find the references. You should read it but I can see that you are too lazy. So once more:
“Tachyonic fields play a very important role in modern physics.
Perhaps the most famous example of a tachyon is the Higgs boson of the Standard Model of particle physics. In its uncondensed phase, the Higgs field has a negative mass squared, and is therefore a tachyon.
The phenomenon of spontaneous symmetry breaking, which is closely related to tachyon condensation, plays a central part in many aspects of theoretical physics, including the Ginzburg-Landau and BCS theories of superconductivity.
Other examples include the inflation field in certain models of cosmic inflation (such as new inflation), and the tachyon of bosonic string theory.”

On the other hand, you wrote a few nonsensical posts without scientific arguments.

Paddoboy, I have no time for your nonsensical “discussion”. Just you at first should read more. You completely do not understand physics. For example, you do not understand that there can be in existence physical objects that no one detector could “see” DIRECTLY.
Click to expand...

Let's look at the facts.
[1] You are in alternative theory forum
[2] It's obvious you are a crank [That is gauged from reading just a few posts from reputable regulars.
[3] If you were fair dinkum with your theory, you would have it peer reviewed through the proper channels.
[4] You have proved nothing: you only offer your own warped agenda laden opinion.
[5]Tachyons are only a specualtive particle. They are not known to exist in reality.
[6]You have 26 pages of your nonsensical interpretations and claims: I put it to you that it is you who is paranoid.
[7] For all the above 6 reasons you [and your thread[ should be in cesspool.
 
Definition: A tachyon is a type of theoretical particle, with the unusual property that it moves faster than the speed of light. The word "tachyon" was coined by Gerald Feinberg in the 1960s, based on the Greek for "swift."
The theory of relativity predicts that a particle can never be accelerated to a speed faster than the speed of light, but physicists have long known that (in theory, at least) it would be possible for particles to move faster than the speed of light, as long as they don't have to accelerate to get there. Tachyons, which always move this fast, are sometimes hypothesized in physics theories to serve some useful purposes.

Though tachyons are sometimes referenced in physics, the overwhelming majority of physicists today recognize the appearance of a tachyon in physics as representing a fundamental instability in the theory being worked with, and there are mathematical tools developed for dealing with these instabilities so that the theories can work. No evidence has ever been found that would support the existence of actual tachyon particles.

Just to be absolutely clear: Most modern physicists do not believe that tachyons actually exist. There's currently no evidence that any physical object moves faster than the speed of light.

Despite this, tachyons show up in science fiction a lot, often related to some form of time travel, since their existence would cause potential violations of causality and allow for information (including matter) to be sent backward in time.



http://physics.about.com/od/physicsqtot/g/tachyon.htm
 
paddoboy said:
Let's look at the facts.
[1] You are in alternative theory forum
[2] It's obvious you are a crank [That is gauged from reading just a few posts from reputable regulars.
[3] If you were fair dinkum with your theory, you would have it peer reviewed through the proper channels.
[4] You have proved nothing: you only offer your own warped agenda laden opinion.
[5]Tachyons are only a specualtive particle. They are not known to exist in reality.
[6]You have 26 pages of your nonsensical interpretations and claims: I put it to you that it is you who is paranoid.
[7] For all the above 6 reasons you [and your thread[ should be in cesspool.
Click to expand...

I *STRONGLY* support this suggestion!!!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top