Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Sylwester Kornowski said:
The front of our Universe expands with radial speed equal to the speed of light in “vacuum”. Since there was the time-distance between the two big bangs and because inflation was superluminal so size of the Universe is much smaller than size of our Cosmos.

.
Click to expand...


You have said much, and none of it has anything to do with Universe/Cosmos meaning the same thing.
What you refer to above is the "Observable Universe" or "Observable Cosmos", it's as simple as that.
The size of the Universe is the same as the size of the cosmos, in fact it is the cosmos.
 
paddoboy said:
You have said much, and none of it has anything to do with Universe/Cosmos meaning the same thing.
What you refer to above is the "Observable Universe" or "Observable Cosmos", it's as simple as that.
The size of the Universe is the same as the size of the cosmos, in fact it is the cosmos.
Click to expand...

No.
The Universe = the Cosmos only when time-distance between the two big bangs (the beginning of inflation and the beginning of expansion of our Universe) is equal to zero. Then, spacetime of the Cosmos is the spacetime of the Universe. Of course, there is the part which we can observe and the invisible part.

In the S-SET it looks in a different manner.
There was the inflation which led to the stable boundary of our Cosmos. Due to the stable boundary, the luminal Einstein spacetime as a whole is in the rest. It is not expanding so the physical constants are constant.

In the resting (as a whole) luminal Einstein spacetime can be created vortices/universes similarly as the tropical cyclones in Earth atmosphere. Then, the local density of the Einstein spacetime is higher - today it is about 1 part in 10^55 parts. Such infinitesimal changes in density cause that the Cosmos and the universes are flat (they consist of matter or of antimatter).

We can see that due to the fluctuations, inside the universes are additional Einstein-spacetime components - it is the dark energy. Due to the dark energy, the dynamic pressure inside universes is higher than outside them so they expand. It is the second big bang associated with expansion of our Universe. This big bang is separated in time from the big bang which started the inflation.

We can see that there does not expand the ground state of the Einstein spacetime. There expands the dark energy. The radial speed of the front of the dark energy is equal to the speed of light in “vacuum” c. We can see that the expanding front of the dark energy we can treat as an abstract boundary of the Universe. Of course, there are the visible and invisible parts of the Universe.

We can see that according to the S-SET, the size of the Universe is much smaller than size of the Cosmos (you know, the volume of a tropical cyclone is much smaller than volume of the Earth atmosphere). But size of the Universe increases (you know, the sizes of the tropical cyclones increase). Some day the size of the Universe will be the same as the Cosmos but due to the stable boundary of the Cosmos, the dark energy and matter will collide with the stable boundary so there can appear a collapse. It is easy to calculate that for universe placed in the centre of the Cosmos, one such oscillation should last about 5*10^5 billion years - it is very long time in comparison with the time-distance to the most distant visible galaxies.
 
paddoboy said:
Yes....The Cosmos, and the Universe both pertain to the same thing.
Click to expand...

In previous posts we have discussed the definitions, not the medium from which the Cosmos and the universes arising in it are built of.

In the S-SET, the definitions of the Cosmos and the universes are very different but it is true that they all concern the phenomena in the luminal Einstein spacetime and in the modified Higgs field that leads to the gravitational fields.
 
Sylwester Kornowski said:
In previous posts we have discussed the definitions, not the medium from which the Cosmos and the universes arising in it are built of.

In the S-SET, the definitions of the Cosmos and the universes are very different but it is true that they all concern the phenomena in the luminal Einstein spacetime and in the modified Higgs field that leads to the gravitational fields.
Click to expand...
I've been reading your book, I'm at around page 280. I would love to give you some sort of review after I am finished. I have to say, you have some interesting theories Mr. Kornowski.
 
Below are the links to my new papers

http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0551

How to Eliminate the Messy Mathematical Methods from Physics and Cosmology?

Abstract
The gauge invariance of equations follows from constancy of charges. There appear arbitrary functions so to obtain quantized values we must apply approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters. The second messy mathematical method applied in physics follows from the wrong assumption that the bare particles are sizeless and that there are in existence interactions with infinite range (it follows from the massless carriers of interactions). In such method, to obtain theoretical results consistent with experimental data, there must appear the mathematical indeterminate forms so they are incoherent as well. Such messy method cannot be eliminate via vibrating flexible strings, as it is in the M/string theory, because such assumption cannot lead to constancy of physical constants. What we should do to eliminate the arbitrary functions, sizeless bare particles, infinite ranges of forces and flexible strings? And some extension to the General Relativity is the answer.


http://vixra.org/abs/1411.0581

Dependence of Gravitational Constant on Gravitational-Mass Density

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the constancy of gravitational constant is discussed. For gravitational-mass density about 48 powers of ten higher than density of the Einstein spacetime, the gravitational constant is equal to zero. Such increase in mass density causes that the Einstein spacetime decays into the modified Higgs field. In our Cosmos, the maximum change in the gravitational constant can be about one part in 37 powers of ten parts i.e. the possible changes are very, very small.
 
Below is the links to my new paper (5 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0008

The Correct Interpretation of the Kaluza-Klein Theory

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the correct interpretation of the Kaluza-Klein theory (KK theory) is presented. In S-SET, the charges are the spinning tori whereas in KK theory they are the masses moving along circle-like fifth dimension. Spinning torus collapses to spinning circle. In reality, the fifth dimension is the additional degree of freedom which follows from the real structure of charges. The fifth-dimension simplification causes that we lose information about internal structure of charges i.e. the KK theory is an effective theory of the S-SET.

Radions are the components of the fifth dimensions. The S-SET shows that gravitational radions are superluminal whereas electromagnetic radions are luminal i.e. we cannot unify the two different radion fields within the same methods and it concerns the generalizations of the KK theory also (for example, the Yang-Mills theories).

The S-SET shows that the cylinder condition in the KK theory follows from the fact that there are the spinning tori/charges and spinning loops.

The luminal electromagnetic radion field leads to photons but the superluminal gravitational radion field does not lead to gravitons and gravitational waves. Emission of gravitational energy, i.e. a decrease in inertial-mass density of the modified Higgs field, is due to increase in gravitational-mass density of a system or due to emission of gravitational mass which carries non-gravitating gravitational field.
 
Below is the links to my new paper (3 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0114

Physical Interpretation of the Mathematical 10 and 26 Dimensions of Spacetime

Abstract
To eliminate the useless mathematical expressions from the perturbative string theory, we must assume that spacetime is 10-dimensional (the 9 spatial dimensions and 1 time dimension). Why string theory is still fruitless?

To describe position, shape and motions of spinning physical circle/closed-string (it has thickness not equal to zero), we need 10 degrees of freedom. Six of the ten degrees of freedom lead to circles i.e. to the ‘compactified’ spatial degrees-of-freedom/dimensions. In an effective theory, the ten-degrees-of-freedom spacetime transforms into 4-dimensional spacetime.

To describe within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET) position, internal structure and motions of a neutrino (it is torus and condensate in its centre both composed of the spinning physical circles), we need 26 degrees of freedom.

In the S-SET, stability of the neutrinos follows from the interactions (due to the dynamic viscosity) of the closed strings with the superluminal modified Higgs field. The modified Higgs field is the radion field and it is the six-degrees-of-freedom subspacetime. On the other hand, in M-theory there appears the extra eleventh compact dimension associated with a radion field.

Due to the succeeding phase transitions of the modified Higgs fields, there appear the more and more complex structures and number of degrees of freedom increases - there is following series: 6, 10, 26, 58 and 122. There as well appear new radion/scalar fields with very different properties. This causes that a complete description of Nature within one type of equations is impossible. We can partially unify all the main partial theories only via the theory of the succeeding phase transitions of the superluminal modified Higgs field and it is the lacking part of ultimate theory.
 
Below is the links to my new paper (4 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0143

The Confinement and Mexican-Hat Mechanism for Baryons, Atomic Nuclei, Neutrinos and Einstein-Spacetime Components

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the confinement and Mexican-hat mechanism for baryons, atomic nuclei, neutrinos and Einstein-spacetime components is described qualitatively and quantitatively.

In core of baryons there appears the circle/compactified-fifth-dimension. The range of confinement of the strongly interacting parts of baryons is defined by the circumference of the compactified fifth dimension.

Ranges of Mexican-hat mechanism depend on radiation mass of the circles/loops produced inside the charges/tori.

There are only five main shells inside the atomic-nucleus Mexican-hat well i.e. the maximum number of electrons inside the well can be 110 and it should be the upper limit for the Mendeleev’s table. Of course, we can produce nuclei containing more protons than 110 but such objects cannot be electrically neutral i.e. they cannot contain more than 110 electrons.

The mean distance between the Einstein-spacetime components in the Einstein spacetime is only about 0.8% higher than the Mexican-hat range. It leads to conclusion that it is relatively very easy to transform, due to the Mexican-hat mechanism for the Einstein-spacetime components, the gravitationally interacting Einstein-spacetime components into condensates with a little higher mass density. In such a way are produced the W and Z bosons. Just the transition from the zero-mass state (the energy of photons and gluons) to the non-zero-mass states is due to the Mexican-hat mechanism for the Einstein-spacetime components. Such is the mechanism which leads to the confinement of the Einstein-spacetime components. This mechanism solves the mass gap problem.
 
Below is the links to my new paper (3 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0169

The Origin of Dark Energy and Dark Matter

Abstract
According to the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the dark energy consists of the additional unentangled Einstein-spacetime components whereas the dark-matter mechanism follows from existence of regions in the Einstein spacetime with lowered dynamic pressure. Such regions mimic gravitational attraction and were produced due to the flows in the ferromagnetic filaments in the era of quasars. In the limit, we can treat the ferromagnetic filaments as the dark matter. At the end of the era of the quasars, there was about 4 times more the dark matter than the hydrogen-helium visible matter. The dark energy and dark-matter mechanism do not follow from existence of some exotic particles. Both are associated with Einstein spacetime. The dark energy or regions with lowered dynamic pressure can be detected indirectly only: via expansion of the Universe, via increased spin speed of stars, gravitational lensing or ferromagnetic filaments.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0184

The Correct Age of the Universe

Abstract
Ludwig et al. (2009) derived solar ages from 1.7 to 22.3 Gyr. The applied Th/Eu ratio is most credible. But the upper limit of the obtained interval is inconsistent with the age of the Universe, about 13.8 Gyr, calculated within the mainstream cosmology. A change of the Ludwig interval in such a way that the lower limit is zero causes that the upper limit is 20.6 Gyr. This value is very close to the age of the Universe obtained within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), about 20.9 Gyr.

G. Hasinger et al. (2002) obtained that the Fe/O abundance in a high-redshift quasar is significantly higher than solar (Fe/O = 2 - 5). This result as well is inconsistent with mainstream cosmology and suggests that age of the Universe is bigger than assumed or that there is an unknown mechanism for production of iron in the very early Universe. The S-SET shows that both conclusions are correct.

The big mistake in the mainstream cosmology follows from the wrong interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment. In reality, due to the quantum entanglement, the speed of light c is the speed of photons in relation to the source or in relation to the last-interaction object. Detectors are always the last-interaction objects so measured speed of photons is the c always. But it is untrue that a photon has simultaneously the speed c in relation to all reference systems.

The S-SET shows that the wrong assumption leads to an illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe about 5 Gyr ago.

The S-SET shows as well that the wrong assumption leads to the incorrect age of the Universe. In reality, the observed most distant cosmological objects are in the time distance 13.4 Gyr but they are already 7.5 Gyr old. In reality, the era of quasars lasted about 10 Gyr but we can see only the end of this era i.e. the last 2.5 Gyr. The quasars transformed into the massive galaxies whereas in explosions of the quasars were produced the satellite/dwarf galaxies - generally, it happened during the unseen 7.5 Gyr. Moreover, due to the duality of relativity, which follows from the quantum entanglement, there is discrepancy between the time distance and spatial distance to an object. The spatial distance to the observed most distant objects is 4.8 Gyr only.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0199

The CMB and the Last-Scattering Cosmological Spheres

Abstract
According to the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), the very early Universe was the loop composed of protogalaxies built of the neutron black holes. Due to the succeeding inflows of the dark energy, there was the exit of the loop from its black-hole state and the loop transformed into the expanding sphere. The Milky-Way Galaxy is very close to the centre of the expanding Universe so we cannot see directly the first stage of evolution of the early Universe. But due to some phenomena, the early binary systems and clusters of protogalaxies are imprinted on the CMB. Due to the mergers of the protogalaxies during the unseen period of evolution, the number of observed today clusters of galaxies should be smaller than it follows from the CMB and such conclusion is consistent with the observational facts. Here, I answered following question: Why we cannot see directly the evolution of the early Universe whereas we can see the CMB with coded initial number of clusters of protogalaxies?


Why the mainstream cosmology is incorrect?
1.
On the CMB are imprinted clusters of galaxies. From the CMB follows that there should be about 2.4 times more clusters of galaxies than observed. It leads to conclusion that initial period of evolution of the Universe is unseen (some clusters should merge) i.e. that age of the Universe is greater than 13.8 Gyr.
2.
In the very distant Universe we should see tremendous number of first-generation big stars, we should see tremendous number of dwarf galaxies and we should see tremendous number of merging dwarf galaxies. We do not see it. There are already the massive galaxies. It suggests as well that we cannot see the first stage of evolution of the Universe.
3.
The initial conditions applied in the mainstream cosmology do not lead to the origin of the dark matter, dark energy and physical constants.
4.
In expanding spacetime the physical constants cannot be constant. Just there does not expand the Higgs field and the Einstein spacetime. There expands the dark energy which is a very small additional part of the Einstein spacetime. The initial conditions should show the origin of creation of the dark energy.
5.
Ludwig et al. (2009) derived solar ages from 1.7 to 22.3 Gyr applying very credible method (the Th/Eu ratio). It as well leads to conclusion that age of the Universe is longer. Of course, there is some uncertainty of these results but it cannot be +- 8Gyr! Moreover, the data concern our Galaxy i.e. the closest cosmos.
6.
Within the mainstream cosmology we cannot explain the exit of the Universe from the black-hole state.
7.
There are not in existence the B-modes associated with gravitational waves. It leads to conclusion that there was a separation in time of the inflation and the big bang of our Universe.
8.
In the very distant Universe there are too many barred galaxies. It is inconsistent with simulations grounded on the Cosmological Standard Model.
9.
There is the UV-photon underproduction crisis.

And so on…
Such problems do not appear within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory.
We need the New Cosmology.
We need as well the new theory of proton and neutron because the three-valence-quarks model leads astray i.e. within this model we cannot calculate exact properties of nucleons.
We can calculate them within S-SET.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1412.0261

The Hubble Constant in the Scale-Symmetric Physics

Abstract
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I answered following question: Why values of Hubble constant calculated on base of observational facts are such messy?

The quantum entanglement causes that the speed of light in ‘vacuum’, c, is the speed of photons in relation to source-emitter or in relation to a last-interaction object (sometimes it is a detector). But it is untrue that speed of a photon is the c in relation to all reference frames. The duality of relativity is very important in cosmology.

Moreover, S-SET shows that for redshift z > = 0.53, we cannot neglect the gravitational redshift.

These two phenomena neglected in the mainstream cosmology, cause that there appear many incorrect interpretations.

Due to the duality of relativity and the gravitational redshift, there appear the spatial and time Hubble constants. Value of the spatial Hubble constant is strictly determined, H(spatial) = 47, whereas the time Hubble constant, which in reality is unknowingly applied in cosmology, depends on redshift so we can calculate only mean values for defined intervals of red shifts. Calculated here mean values for the time Hubble constant are as follows: for redshift up to 0.43 the time Hubble constant is 74.3, for redshift up to 0.60 is 68.4, for up to 0.64 is 72.4, for up to 0.7 is 78.5. The minimum value about 61 is for redshift up to 0.53.

To eliminate the nonlinearity of the time Hubble constant, in the mainstream cosmology is introduced the recessional velocity. It is not true that recessional velocity follows from expansion of space - it follows from the duality of relativity and gravitational redshift.

The time-Hubble-constant dependence on observational redshift leads to an illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe about 5.7 Gyr ago.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0009

Masses of the Upsilon Mesons

Abstract
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I described composition and calculated masses of the Upsilon mesons. This follows from the atom-like structure of baryons. Obtained results are very close to experimental data.
 
I extended the last paper titled “Masses of the Upsilon Mesons”.

The extended abstract is as follows.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I described composition and calculated masses of the Upsilon mesons. This follows from the atom-like structure of baryons.

Applying the modified quantum chromodynamics, within the S-SET, we can calculate the masses of quarks. This leads to conclusion that S-SET is the superior theory to the Standard Model in initial conditions. Calculated mass of b quark is 4190 MeV.

Here, I showed that the Type 1S Upsilon meson is both a structure containing b-b(anti) quark pair (theoretical mass of such structure is 9460.1 MeV), or mesonic nucleus (theoretical mass of such nucleus is 9465.1 MeV). Due to the transformations/oscillations of these two different structures having practically the same mass and spin and parity, the full width of the Type 1S Upsilon meson is very small.

Calculated masses of Types 1S, 2S, 3S, 4S, 10860 and 11020 Upsilon mesons are very close to experimental data. They all have unitary spin and negative parity.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0096

The Constructive Criticism of the Renormalization

Abstract
Many great physicists criticized the renormalization as an incoherent method of neglecting infinities in an arbitrary way. Dirac said that renormalization ‘is just not sensible mathematics’.

Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I proved that the mainstream QED is incomplete and is based on a few wrong assumptions. QED leads to experimental data only due to the free parameters. It is not true that there is not upper limit (cutoff) for energy of virtual pairs and it is not true that bare particles are sizeless. The elimination of these two wrong assumptions causes that the modified QED (MQED) is very simple and free from infinities so from renormalization as well.

In reality, an electron-positron pair at first appears as a binary system of loops with condensates in their centres both composed of entangled Einstein-spacetime components. Next, due to the superluminal quantum entanglement of the luminal Einstein-spacetime components, the binary system immediately transforms into binary system of tori/electric-charges. With each torus/electric-charge is associated loop, condensate responsible for weak interactions and only one virtual electron-positron pair. Due to the superluminal quantum entanglement, electron disappears in one place and appears in another one, and so on - it is the quantum behaviour of electron. Most important is the fact that both descriptions of magnetic moment and spin of an electron, i.e. via the initial loop plus condensate and via the torus/electric-charge plus loop plus condensate plus virtual pair, are equivalent. Both descriptions lead to the same ratio of magnetic moment of electron to Bohr magneton: 1.0011596521735. This result is very close to experimental data.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0119

Theory of the Nuclear Binding Energy

Abstract
Here, within the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I present the mathematically very simple theory of nuclear binding energy. We start from the Newtonian dynamics. It leads to binding energy proportional to coupling constant (or running coupling) of interaction and inversely proportional to distance between interacting objects. Applying the new formula, as some examples, I calculated binding energy of electron in ground state in hydrogen atom (13.6 eV), mean binding energy per nucleon in the alpha particle (7.07 MeV) mean binding energy per nucleon in the nucleus of iron atom (8.79 MeV) and in nucleus of nobelium atom (7.21 MeV). Obtained results are consistent with experimental data.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0165

The Origin of Masses of Globular Clusters

Abstract
It is not true that we can calculate correctly the Chandrasekhar limit assuming that a neutron star is a Fermi gas that obeys Fermi-Dirac statistics. Due to the atom-like structure of baryons, the binding energy for all neutrons has the same value so the factors which appear in the Chandrasekhar limit are incorrect.

There are at least two Chandrasekhar limits i.e. about 11.2 solar masses and 1.394 solar masses which is the mass of the Type Ia supernovae.

The clouds, that later transform into the globular clusters, are produced on Schwarzschild surface of the quasars and are carried by the relativistic jets. Calculated here the upper limit for the initial mass of the globular clusters in the Milky-Way Galaxy is 155,200 solar masses.

Quasars with greater mass produce more massive globular clusters.

The obtained theoretical upper limit for the mass is consistent with observational facts.
 
Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)

http://vixra.org/abs/1501.0179

The New Cosmology

Abstract
Here, on the basis of the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory (S-SET), I present a recapitulation concerning evolution of our Cosmos.

In details I described evolution of the quasars and pointed the main differences between the new cosmology and the mainstream cosmology.

I described the origin of dark energy and dark matter. They both are associated with flows in the Einstein spacetime.

The matter-antimatter asymmetry results from internal helicity of the vortices which, due to fluctuations, appear in the Einstein spacetime. The asymmetry has nothing with an asymmetry in behaviour of matter and antimatter.

Due to the duality of relativity, the Universe is about 21 Gyr old (Ludwig et al. (2009) derived solar ages up to 22.3 Gyr) but we cannot see the initial period about 7.5 Gyr of evolution of the quasars.

It is not true that the neutrons in neutron stars behave as a Fermi gas. There are at least three Chandrasekhar limits which leads to supernova explosions without neutron-star remnant.
 
In my post #143 in this thread (see page 8) published on Mar 8, 2012 (i.e. about 3 years ago), I wrote as follows.

“…. whereas the models of the supernova SN 1987A do not explain why we do not observe a remnant/neutron-star after its explosion. My model explains this effect. This means that my model of SN 1987A is better than the mainstream models……”

In my post #146 on the same page I wrote:

“If all is O.K. so, for example, why do not we see a remnant/neutron-star in the place of explosion of the supernova SN 1987A? It should be because the SN 1987A had mass much greater than the Type Ia supernova.”

Just the Scale-Symmetric Everlasting Theory shows that there are at least two Chandrasekhar limits i.e. for 1.39 solar masses (it is the mass of the Type Ia supernova which explodes without a neutron-star remnant) and for about 11.2 solar masses (it was the mass of the SN 1987A supernova which as well should explode without a neutron-star remnant) - see my post #718, page 36, published on 16 January 2015.



Now you can compare it with the last observational facts. Here

http://www.interactions.org/cms/?pid=1034437

is the Press Release, published today (22 January 2015), concerning data from High Energy Stereoscopic System (H.E.S.S.). Among other things, we can read as follows.

“Surprisingly, however, the young supernova remnant SN 1987A did not show up, in contrast to theoretical predictions. But we’ll continue the search for it,”



So I should write once more that we will never detect a neutron-star remnant of the supernova SN 1987A explosion. It is because the mainstream cosmology is incorrect whereas my New Cosmology is correct i.e. in explosions of supernovae with a mass of about 11.2 solar masses there cannot appear a neutron-star remnant.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top