Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Still curious why this hasn't been published and peer-reviewed if you are so certain it's correct...

Just mainstream attempts are going in opposite direction. Over the past few decades it was assumed that the mathematically very complicated string/M theory can be the ToE. But we can see that this theory is useless. Just complexity on the lowest level of Nature leads astray (the Everlasting Theory shows that only the classification in the M theory is correct).

It is very easy to notice that all problems in mainstream theories follow from the assumption that bare particles are sizeless. So there appeared the closed strings. But then the mainstream theories are mathematically more and more complicated. No one understands physical meaning of the very complicated differential equations, no one understand physical meaning of the all mathematical transformations and even applying powerful computers we cannot find fruitful solutions. We can see that we should apply new mathematical methods to formulate ToE.

It is very easy to notice that there are different scales. For example, there is the Planck length, the range of the weak interactions, range of strong interactions, reduced Compton radius of electron, and so on. On the other hand, there was the inflation producing the succeeding scales. We can see that we should seek a simple formula for the succeeding phase transitions that appeared during the inflation. And it is in the Everlasting Theory. Just simplicity is the fruitful solution. When we know the internal structure of the bare particles and bare cosmic structure then cosmology and description of the gravitational, electromagnetic, weak and strong interactions is much simpler, for example, there does not appear the renormalization, there do not appear approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters and the theoretical results are much better.

We can see that there is the complexity-simplicity ‘war’.
Is there a journal which prefers rather simplicity than complexity? My theory shows that simplicity is much more fruitful.
 
Recapitulation
Contrary to the Everlasting Theory, the mainstream theories are the incomplete theories because they do not start from the truly fundamental initial conditions. It causes that there appear many speculations, wrong interpretations and free parameters that delude people, especially deludes Paddoboy.



Dunce or no dunce my friend, what I do see and know is you are seriously affected with an over inflated ego and delusions of grandeur, and your hypothesis will forever remain in the limited confines of your web page and forums such as this.
You have no proven theory. You have an unsupported hypothesis. The mainstream cosmology reject your nonsense.
That you need to live with.

from your friendly neighbourhood dunce.
 
There will be not a reply to your next nonsensical posts unless you will accept my scientific arguments. They indeed are the scientific arguments.
.



I do not accept your gobblydook take on current cosmology. I certainly do not accept your so called scientific arguments on most of what you have said.
If I was wrong, and if you were right, you would be famous, world wide and have had the Nobel prize long ago.
Best of luck with your delusional take on cosmology. You'll need it!
 
I do not accept your gobblydook take on current cosmology. I certainly do not accept your so called scientific arguments on most of what you have said.
If I was wrong, and if you were right, you would be famous, world wide and have had the Nobel prize long ago.
Best of luck with your delusional take on cosmology. You'll need it!

Paddoboy, you ‘discuss’ as a frustrated layman.
You completely do not understand how a useful discussion should look so I must teach you it.

I am a physicist and, as I wrote before, I am a true teacher. I discuss with laymen but only if such discussion is useful.

So a useful discussion should look as follows.
Sylwester, you wrote as follows “……”. It is untrue because it is inconsistent with following experimental data and/or observational facts - see following article “….”
You cannot claim that I am wrong because my theory is sometimes inconsistent with one or more mainstream theories. It is very stupid when you write such sentences.


If you are unable to discuss in such a way then, if you are an honest man, you can formulate a question concerning unsolved problems within the mainstream particle physics or mainstream cosmology. Then I will try to say how it is solved within my theory.

You absolutely must accept the definition of a better theory. Only dunces cannot accept such definition.
You cannot write the dogmas without justifications - only dunces or frustrated people can do it.


So once more: our discussion must be useful, you should not ‘discuss’ as a frustrated man. You as well should be polite.
 
So... did you have a point to make, or did you just come here to sling an insult? Cause, seriously... that was rather uncalled for...

Kittamaru, I asked a question. Asking if someone was Honest is now an insult?

Do Post #'s 602 and 603 contain any insulting STATEMENTS - that were clearly meant as insults?

To Wit : (color by dmoe)
Dunce or no dunce my friend, what I do see and know is you are seriously affected with an over inflated ego and delusions of grandeur, and your hypothesis will forever remain in the limited confines of your web page and forums such as this.
You have no proven theory. You have an unsupported hypothesis. The mainstream cosmology reject your nonsense.
That you need to live with.

from your friendly neighbourhood dunce.

I do not accept your gobblydook take on current cosmology. I certainly do not accept your so called scientific arguments on most of what you have said.
If I was wrong, and if you were right, you would be famous, world wide and have had the Nobel prize long ago.
Best of luck with your delusional take on cosmology. You'll need it!

I was only asking!

If the Forum Rules forbid asking questions - then I guess my question was "rather uncalled for...".

However, "insults" were being hurled prior to me ASKING my question EXTOLLING the previous Posters HONESTY!
 
*shrugs* Fair enough point DMOE - I appreciate the candid clarification.
 
Kittamaru, I asked a question. Asking if someone was Honest is now an insult?

Do Post #'s 602 and 603 contain any insulting STATEMENTS - that were clearly meant as insults?

To Wit : (color by dmoe)




I was only asking!

If the Forum Rules forbid asking questions - then I guess my question was "rather uncalled for...".

However, "insults" were being hurled prior to me ASKING my question EXTOLLING the previous Posters HONESTY!

Are we not suppose to see that you are obviously pursuing paddoboy all over the forum trying to piss him off?:shrug:
 
To be fair Origin - I've not got the time to dig across the entire forum to compare behavior - it was only this thread mentioned in the report, so that's what I'm working off of - if there is a larger behavioral trend here then that needs brought to attentio
(note - Origin, not saying you are right or wrong, just that I'm not working from that perspective as I wasn't aware it existed)
 
Paddoboy, you ‘discuss’ as a frustrated layman.
You completely do not understand how a useful discussion should look so I must teach you it.

I certainly discuss as a layman, but I'm quite cool calm and collected.
But let's not make this about me, that would be too easy for you.
This is about you, and the mainstream cosmological fraternity and the whole world in general.
Yes you continue to ramble on for years and years, pushing a non reviewed, unsupported unlikely hypothesis, and expect other to bow in reverence and accept it.
I am sure others have noted your highly incredible delusional take on reality.
 
Are we not suppose to see that you are obviously pursuing paddoboy all over the forum trying to piss him off?:shrug:

Doesn't worry me origin, but thanks anyway.
Obviously his handle "dumbest man on earth", reflects reality. :)
 
Are we not suppose to see that you are obviously pursuing paddoboy all over the forum trying to piss him off?:shrug:

origin, you are free to "see" whatever you want to "see", be it reality or not!

As an aside, any normal well adjusted and at least predominately sane adult in this world should be above using childish insults to attempt to "piss" anyone "off". Conversely, anyone claiming maturity should be above provocation by words!

At a very young age, I was taught that : "Sticks and stones may break my bones but words can never hurt me"!

At any rate, in science or indeed life, attacking the person/source instead of the argument/position is just plain WRONG!

How do you "see" Post #614 ?

Goodbye, origin.
 
Last edited:
I certainly discuss as a layman, but I'm quite cool calm and collected.
But let's not make this about me, that would be too easy for you.
This is about you, and the mainstream cosmological fraternity and the whole world in general.
Yes you continue to ramble on for years and years, pushing a non reviewed, unsupported unlikely hypothesis, and expect other to bow in reverence and accept it.
I am sure others have noted your highly incredible delusional take on reality.

In relation to what I have said above Sylvester, I was going to add that you do actually have something going for you.
You at least post in the alternative theory thread, unlike a couple of other arrogant alternative hypothesis pushers, that crave notoriety and post in physics and maths.
But then after checking the years you have been pushing your nonsense, I see that you were also originally posting in one of the mainstream forums...Until the powers that be, woke up to the stuff you were pushing.
Two more steps down to go though...pseudoscience and then cesspool.
 
To be fair Origin - I've not got the time to dig across the entire forum to compare behavior - it was only this thread mentioned in the report, so that's what I'm working off of - if there is a larger behavioral trend here then that needs brought to attentio
(note - Origin, not saying you are right or wrong, just that I'm not working from that perspective as I wasn't aware it existed)

He brought it to your attention as far as I'm concerned. Both these people have been suspended over this nonsense so you should be aware of that.
 
I certainly discuss as a layman, but I'm quite cool calm and collected.
But let's not make this about me, that would be too easy for you.
This is about you, and the mainstream cosmological fraternity and the whole world in general.
Yes you continue to ramble on for years and years, pushing a non reviewed, unsupported unlikely hypothesis, and expect other to bow in reverence and accept it.
I am sure others have noted your highly incredible delusional take on reality.

That's a theme with Sylwester. Looking down the slope of his nose.
 
He brought it to your attention as far as I'm concerned. Both these people have been suspended over this nonsense so you should be aware of that.

brucep, I am fairly certain that Kittamaru is aware of all infractions/bans that "Trippy" has imposed on me.

Kittamaru, I apologize if my bringing attention to the "childish behaviour/conduct" by members has 'Derailed" this Thread.
 
To be fair Origin - I've not got the time to dig across the entire forum to compare behavior - it was only this thread mentioned in the report, so that's what I'm working off of - if there is a larger behavioral trend here then that needs brought to attentio
(note - Origin, not saying you are right or wrong, just that I'm not working from that perspective as I wasn't aware it existed)



With respect, that was obvious and understandable.
Obvious that you were unaware of the history and hysterics of dmoe concerning me, and understandable that a mod would be hard pressed knowing all the ins and outs concerning other forums and personal issues that have evolved over time.
Let me just say that dmoe was not asking an honest question, and I'm sure if someone researched this thread to the rather insulting post 599 by Sylvester, and then my facetious reply in return, one would quite readily see that dmoe was far from being honest.
 
Back
Top