Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[AlphaNumeric]

They do not appear in my string/M theory because I apply the productive methods only.

They do not appear because your claims have nothing to do with string/M theory. To claim otherwise and be unable to produce actual string/M theory equations makes you a liar.

The superluminal speeds of neutrinos discovered in the OPERA experiment show that the mainstream theory of neutrinos IS INCORRECT!

I like how you've just taken a single result which hasn't been confirmed or replicated and actually has been shown to be inconsistent with the interpretation of moving faster than light and just repeat it. You really should keep up to date with things.

You still write and write and write the nonsense. My students understand physics much better than you, PhD.

So you have students now? It says on your CV you taught primary school, which might go some way to explain why you are so weak in mathematics.

I'll skip your repetitive self advertising. Quite why you think any one gives a shit about it I don't know. Your inability to go a post without spewing out talking points shows how poor your discussion skills are. It even makes me call into question your basic comprehension skills and IQ (I mean over and above what your posts suggest already).

AlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense about the T-duality in my theory!

You claimed T duality was the cause of something, implying you think T duality is a physical process when in fact it's a mathematical transform which shows two things are actually the same thing written in different ways. Likewise for S duality, there's no change in the physics.

The SM can predict a value for the strong force at high energies because there is at least 3 TIMES MORE THE PARAMETERS THAN IN MY THEORY. You know, in 2004 this value was zero. When the new experimental data appeared then in the SM instead the gas-like plasma appeared the liquid-like plasma.

I see you still don't understand the difference between asymptotic freedom and confinement. The experiments involving quark-gluon plasmas didn't change any predictions about asymptotic freedom because they are consistent with asymptotic freedom. The SM still predicts that as the energy scale goes to infinity the strong coupling goes to zero. This is consistent with QGP experiments, in fact they help confirm that the coupling indeed runs and it runs in a manner expected from beta function calculations. The unexpected data QGPs provided us was related to a different part of QCD, showing that certain channels have larger contributions than were expected.

You and I have been over this many times, mainly on PhysForums. The fact you're daft enough to not only misrepresent the SM but to misrepresent it to me, someone with working experience with it and who has discussed it with you before shows how dishonest you are. You might be used to throwing out half a dozen lies every time you open your mouth and getting away with it when talking to friends or family but it won't fly here.

The last but one your sentence is as usual the paranoia. I understand the quantum field theory much better than you can because my theory is the effective theory of leptons, hadrons, photons and the carriers of the gravitational forces.

You don't understand mainstream quantum field theory and your work is not a quantum field theory. You are doing it again, claiming you understand something in the mainstream when in fact you are referring to your own take on things. You don't know any string theory, you just have your own interpretation of what little bits of information you've read but you claim to understand your version. Now you're doing it with quantum field theory. It's profoundly dishonest.

My theory unifies all interactions via the phase transitions and such theory is the EFFECTIVE theory.

You really need to look up what 'effective theory' means. It means it's an inexact approximation. For example, Newtonian mechanics is an effective theory for relativity. Electromagnetism is an effective theory for quantum electrodynamics. Yukawa theory is an effective theory for quantum chromodynamics. Supergravity is an effective theory for string/M theory.

This just shows you're happy to use words you don't understand.

You claim that you understand the quantum field theory so my questions are as follows: Why there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos? Why we cannot detect the gravitons? Why within the mainstream theories we cannot EFFECTIVELLY unify gravity with other forces, and so on?

You again demonstrate you can't separate what everyone else refers to when they say 'quantum field theory' and what nonsense you've made up. By 'quantum field theory' I am referring to the things lectured in universities, published in journals and written about in books. For example, the material covered by 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroeder. That is quantum field theory and I'm certain you don't understand it. You don't even know what I'm referring to, for Pete's sake!

Can you see that you are dishonest, not me?

Even ignoring all the dishonesty of yours I've just highlighted, let's consider what you say next :

Can you see that you still write the nonsense because you did not read my book?

So you're basically saying that if I don't read your book then I'm not understanding things like string theory or QFT properly. Clearly that is wrong.

In my string/M theory

Your version, which is so utterly different from the mainstream version that to call it string/M theory is fundamentally dishonest. When you have to use different definitions to everyone else you're being dishonest and you do it constantly.

If scientists such as you will ignore the experimental data, for example, the OPERA data then my war will last very long.

And what about the papers which followed it showing it had a huge clock sync error, removing more than half the discrepancy? Or the paper which showed the effect cannot be superluminal else the energy profile of the detected beams would have been different?

The OPERA experiment highlights something you've failed to understand which I've been telling you about the strong coupling. The experiments don't yield the results, like the value of the strong coupling or the speed of the neutrinos, directly. Instead they are inferred through the use of a model. If you change the model you change the inferred results. Throwing out the SM completely changes the value of the strong coupling, thus proving your claims false. In the case of the neutrinos it was demonstrated the speed of the neutrinos was not correctly inferred due to clock sync issues and the neglecting of electroweak Cherenkov radiation.

You're the one whose ignoring the experimental data. The OPERA paper shows that physicists are willing to consider knocking over their central results, it isn't the 'communist' conspiracy you claim it is. If the results were going to be ignored they'd not have been announced to the world. Your evaluation of the situation is self contradictory. Like your work.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, such ‘discussion’ has no sense. You should read, for example, 10 times what you wrote. You write the nonsense only. Your thinking is below high school level. You reject the obvious facts and you ignore my answers/explanations. Probably you have some problems to understand the read text. I can see that when my explanations are more detailed, i.e. longer, then your understanding of the read text is worse and worse. I waste my time for teaching you the good physics. But I hope that there are readers who understand my argumentation. Can you reject the personal remarks and concentrate on the scientific discussion? Your personal remarks look as a first stadium of schizophrenia.

So once more: can you read a few times each my answer?

They do not appear because your claims have nothing to do with string/M theory. To claim otherwise and be unable to produce actual string/M theory equations makes you a liar.

I wrote many times that my initial conditions differ from the applied in the mainstream string/M theory so the maths MUST DIFFER ALSO.

But my theory leads to the FUNDAMENTAL FRAMEWORK of the mainstream string/M theory.

The phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime INDEED lead to the one fundamental bosonic string theory and the 3+2=5 superstring theories. Why it is possible? This is possible because physicists know that a bell is ringing but they do not know which one. This causes that the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective (too many solutions and wrong conclusions such as the higher dimensions).
My theory, due to the phase transitions, leads to the three TORI/FERMIONS which have different sizes and inside which the real and virtual BOSONIC LOOPS arise. This means that in my theory there are indeed the three basic superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. The additional two heterotic theories follow from the behaviour of the virtual and real pairs which appear in the field of the STABLE tori. I wrote many times that such pairs appear as the loops which transform into the torus-antitorus pairs and, next, they collapse to the photon or gluon balls. The heterotic-O theory concerns the pairs and balls (the weak couplings) whereas the heterotic-E theory concerns the loops (the strong couplings). The rest are the different interpretations due to the different initial conditions. My initial conditions are correct so my string/M theory is the effective theory whereas the mainstream theory is ineffective because starts from wrong initial conditions so some interpretations are wrong also.

Recapitulation

Physicists know that some bell is ringing but they do not know which one. This causes that they began from wrong initial conditions. The wrong initial conditions lead to the wrong conclusion that the fundamental string/torus vibrates in higher dimensions. The wrong initial conditions cause that the mainstream string/M theory is the ineffective theory and this will be forever unless physicists change the initial conditions for the conditions applied in my theory.

I will answer the other your ‘questions’ later because a too long text is for you too difficult.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, did you read my previous post at least ten times? Do you understand my scientific argumentation?

This post is entitled as follows.

Classical General Relativity contra Quantum Field Theory

You again demonstrate you can't separate what everyone else refers to when they say 'quantum field theory' and what nonsense you've made up. By 'quantum field theory' I am referring to the things lectured in universities, published in journals and written about in books. For example, the material covered by 'An Introduction to Quantum Field Theory' by Peskin and Schroeder. That is quantum field theory and I'm certain you don't understand it. You don't even know what I'm referring to, for Pete's sake!

The Quantum Field Theory (the QFT) begins from incomplete initial conditions and from wrong interpretations of the initial conditions what leads to the wrong conclusion that one of the two basic theories must be wrong. When we verify the initial conditions then the concussion is that both theories are correct but some interpretations are incorrect. This is the same problem as for the mainstream string/M theory – physicists know that some bell is ringing but they do not know which one.

What we should know to understand that both theories i.e. the Classical General Relativity (the CGR) and QFT are the correct theories? During the period of inflation, due to the very high density of the fundamental Newtonian spacetime composed of the structureless tachyons, my closed strings and neutrinos composed of the superluminal binary systems of the closed strings behaved as the quantum particles i.e. they disappeared in one place of spacetime and appeared in another one, and so on. Such behaviour leads to a distribution of mass, energy, charges and other properties of the quantum particles stable for the period of spinning i.e. leads to the wave functions. Today, density of the Newtonian spacetime is too low any particles could create from the Newtonian spacetime components i.e. TODAY the Newtonian spacetime is classical. During the period of inflation, the almost all inertial mass and the superluminal energy of the Newtonian spacetime had been frozen inside the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of. The ratio of the superluminal energy frozen inside the neutrinos to their mass is about 10^120.

I write the very important sentence once more: Today the Newtonian spacetime is classical i.e. TODAY from this field components cannot be produced any quantum particles. The gravitational constant G depends on the internal structure of neutrinos and the today density of the Newtonian spacetime. The distances between the binary systems of neutrinos in the Einstein spacetime are about 3,500 times greater than the external radius of neutrinos i.e. is about 3.5*10^-32 m. Between the binary systems of neutrinos is the CLASSICAL NEWTONIAN SPACETIME ONLY. This means that the Einstein spacetime looks as a SMOOTH MEDIUM for distances greater than about 10^-31 m. All particles greater than the binary systems of neutrinos consist of such systems and these particles produce the gravitational gradients in the Newtonian spacetime and these gradients are imprinted on the Einstein spacetime too. Such interpretation leads to the Classical Gravity.

So once more: The tremendous energy frozen inside the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of, i.e. the tremendous energy ELIMINATED from the Newtonian spacetime and the small distances between the Einstein spacetime components cause that TODAY the gravity is classical and smooth for distances greater than about 10^-31 m.

What about the QFT? We can completely eliminate the QFT from the descriptions of interactions of the stable structures which appear in my string/M theory. This is because TODAY, similarly as the closed strings and neutrinos, they are the non-quantum objects at least for periods shorter than the period of spinning. We need the QFT to describe behaviour of quantum particles during periods longer than the period of spinning. This means that we need the QFT to describe the electromagnetic interactions via the creations and annihilations of the electron-positron pairs or the strong interactions via the sham quark-antiquark pairs, and so on. TODAY, the QFT is obligatory and acts on higher level than the General Relativity. I derived the postulates applied in the QFT from the properties of the Einstein spacetime. There appears the new interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle and modified interpretation of the wave function. Because my theory leads to the postulates applied in the QFT so leads also to the correct parts of this theory.

Recapitulation

Due to the tremendous superluminal energy frozen inside the Einstein spacetime components and the small distances between them, the General Relativity is TODAY the classical theory and is TODAY the more fundamental theory than the QFT. There are many physical quantities concerning the all known particles which we can calculate classically i.e. without the QFT. I calculated a few hundreds such quantities. We need the QFT to describe the renewable/quantum particles as, for example, the electrons and sham quarks, during time much, much longer than the period of spinning. Due to the tachyons, the QFT is the real and UNLOCAL theory. Due to the behaviour of the renewable/quantum particles, we cannot say about their trajectories so the interpretation which leads to the integrals over all possible trajectories, is incorrect whereas the interpretation which leads to motion of wave function as a whole has physical meaning (the Schrodinger equation). In my theory, I apply the new interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle but, generally, my theory is the theory of the stable structures or the quantum structures for the periods shorter or equal to the period of spinning. This causes that practically I do not need the QFT in my theory. My theory is the theory more fundamental than the CGR and the QFT.

AlphaNumeric, can you see that I write about things you never learned? Without my explanations, you cannot understand the QFT as a whole.

The next post will be about the neutrino speed. AlphaNumeric, as usual, you cannot find the features in common for a set of experimental data.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, as usual, you cannot find the features in common for a set of experimental data.

And what about the papers which followed it showing it had a huge clock sync error, removing more than half the discrepancy? Or the paper which showed the effect cannot be superluminal else the energy profile of the detected beams would have been different?

It is obvious that physicists will try to find a mistake. It is the natural procedure. But you and other ‘renovators’ of the OPERA data do not understand that there are also the other data concerning the neutrino speed i.e. the MINOS data and the observational data concerning the supernova SN 1987A.

I, within ONE COHERENT DESCRIPTION of the weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons inside the atom-like structure of baryons, obtained the theoretical results consistent with the ALL known experimental data concerning the neutrino speed. For physicist who has intuition needed in physics, there is 100% of certainty that the neutrinos from the weak decays inside the baryons are the superluminal neutrinos. And the simple math proves it.
Today, physicists do not understand also that there are the natural broadenings of the neutrino speed which depend on the atom-like structure of baryons and mass of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. It is the natural process – this is not a result of statistical or systematic errors (see the description in my book, pages 106-108). Of course, some part of the broadenings follows from the errors.

Today, physicists and astronomers to explain the results concerning the neutrino speed give different explanations to save the SM. But in my opinion, this is the childish game because the different explanations have not features in common. Moreover, within my Everlasting Theory I predicted existence of the superluminal neutrinos before the OPERA data appeared. I started the thread “Neutrino Speed” on September 12, 2011 i.e. 10 or 11 days before the OPERA data appeared.
The Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos. Due to the Newtonian spacetime properties, their speed is equal to the c so the GR is correct. But due to the adiabatic processes which last about 10^-43 s (the Planck critical time), the virtual photons can move with speeds lower than the c. Such processes are not important in the GR.

Next big question is as follows: Can the internal structure of particles change due to the relativistic processes? The obvious answer is NO. But such answer is correct only partially.

AlphaNumeric, nature often behaves in a different manner than it is described in the books you read. My theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory so my theory solves the all unsolved fundamental problems within the mainstream theories.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You really need to look up what 'effective theory' means.

The “effective string/M theory” means that we can accept the obtained very small distances between my theoretical results (a few hundreds) and the experimental data. The word “effective” concerns the obtained theoretical results in comparison to the experimental data. This means that the mainstream string/M theory is the ineffective theory.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I see you still don't understand the difference between asymptotic freedom and confinement. The experiments involving quark-gluon plasmas didn't change any predictions about asymptotic freedom because they are consistent with asymptotic freedom. The SM still predicts that as the energy scale goes to infinity the strong coupling goes to zero. This is consistent with QGP experiments, in fact they help confirm that the coupling indeed runs and it runs in a manner expected from beta function calculations. The unexpected data QGPs provided us was related to a different part of QCD, showing that certain channels have larger contributions than were expected.

You and I have been over this many times, mainly on PhysForums. The fact you're daft enough to not only misrepresent the SM but to misrepresent it to me, someone with working experience with it and who has discussed it with you before shows how dishonest you are. You might be used to throwing out half a dozen lies every time you open your mouth and getting away with it when talking to friends or family but it won't fly here.

The fact is as follows. The asymptotic freedom leads to the zero for the alpha_strong for high energies. It leads to the gas-like plasma. But in 2005, the new experimental data showed that it is untrue. There is the liquid-like plasma. This caused that physicists had to change the QCD, as you wrote, the contributions from the channels. We can interpret the changes in the QCD as follows. The changed QCD is correct or the observed liquid-like plasma instead the gas-like plasma shows that the QCD is at least partially incorrect. You cannot claim that the asymptotic freedom is still valid because you changed the contributions from the channels to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. In such way, we can ‘prove’ everything.

My theory shows that there is not in existence the asymptotic freedom. The decreasing alpha_strong for higher and higher energies follows from the law of conservation of the spin of the loops responsible for the strong interactions. When we accelerate, for example, a proton then the spin speed of the loops decreases i.e. the lifetime increases. Then, from the Uncertainty Principle follows that mass of the virtual loop decreases so the alpha_strong decreases also. There is not in existence the confinement also. Just there are the gluon-photon transitions outside the strong field (the sham quarks consist of the gluons). The range of the strong field is defined by the circumference of the loops (2.92 fm). We observe the liquid-like plasma due to the asymptotic packing of the VERY STABLE CORES OF THE BARYONS. For very high energies, the cores are packed to maximum. Within my QCD, I calculated many, many physical quantities and they are consistent with experimental data. Moreover, in my QCD is at least 3 times less parameters than in the mainstream QCD.
Of course, some methods applied in the mainstream QCD are correct because there are the sham quark-antiquark pairs. This look similarly as the QED – there are the electron-positron pairs. I proved that the QED is incomplete, so the QCD also, due to the fact we treat the bare particles as the point particles. The bare particles are not the point particles.

Recapitulation
We must change many parts in the QCD theory to obtain the effective QCD theory for low, medium and high energies. We cannot, for example, calculate the exact mass of the up and down quarks because we neglected the internal structure of the bare particles and the fact that inside baryons is the very stable core.
Once more: my theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory. We must reformulate many mainstream theories.
Your posts on PhysForums and here were and are useless and the above explanations show that it is true. The part of my Everlasting Theory concerning the QCD does not overlap even partially with the mainstream QCD so also with your posts. My descriptions of the asymptotic freedom, strong interactions, confinement, internal structure of the bare particles HAVE NO TANGENT POINT WITH YOUR EXPLANATIONS. Do you understand it? I teach you, not you me! You are dishonest, you always was dishonest. For example, you two times banned me and NEXT wrote the untrue posts about me and my theory. Is it honest? This means that you are very bad man.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, such ‘discussion’ has no sense.

It would seem so, as all you ever do is just repeat assertions rather than have a proper back and forth.

Your thinking is below high school level.[/qioute]My qualifications and job say otherwise. The same can't be said for you.

I can see that when my explanations are more detailed, i.e. longer, then your understanding of the read text is worse and worse.

When you go into just repetitions of your claims, rather than addressing what I said, I ignore you.

Can you reject the personal remarks and concentrate on the scientific discussion?

I've tried to discuss the details with you, I requested you show algebraicly you can derive string/M theory and you refused. How can we have a discussion when you can't answer questions?

Your personal remarks look as a first stadium of schizophrenia.

Really, you're going with schizophrenia? It's funny, you complain about my supposed personal remarks then you say I'm showing early signs of schizophrenia? Nice hypocrisy.

But my theory leads to the FUNDAMENTAL FRAMEWORK of the mainstream string/M theory.

A claim you simply have no shown.

The phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime INDEED lead to the one fundamental bosonic string theory and the 3+2=5 superstring theories. Why it is possible? This is possible because physicists know that a bell is ringing but they do not know which one. This causes that the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective (too many solutions and wrong conclusions such as the higher dimensions).
My theory, due to the phase transitions, leads to the three TORI/FERMIONS which have different sizes and inside which the real and virtual BOSONIC LOOPS arise. This means that in my theory there are indeed the three basic superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. The additional two heterotic theories follow from the behaviour of the virtual and real pairs which appear in the field of the STABLE tori. I wrote many times that such pairs appear as the loops which transform into the torus-antitorus pairs and, next, they collapse to the photon or gluon balls. The heterotic-O theory concerns the pairs and balls (the weak couplings) whereas the heterotic-E theory concerns the loops (the strong couplings). The rest are the different interpretations due to the different initial conditions. My initial conditions are correct so my string/M theory is the effective theory whereas the mainstream theory is ineffective because starts from wrong initial conditions so some interpretations are wrong also.

You really think that counts as evidence? You just make assertions. You don't show anything quantitative, anything precise, anything other than just assertions.

AlphaNumeric, did you read my previous post at least ten times? Do you understand my scientific argumentation?

Your arguments are just lists of assertions. You haven't provided any evidence and I keep asking you to do so. And you've ignored that your interpretation of things like T duality are completely at odds with string/M theory. That alone proves you haven't constructed anything related to them.

AlphaNumeric, can you see that I write about things you never learned? Without my explanations, you cannot understand the QFT as a whole.

And yet I have published work in the realm of quantum field theory. Actually I have published work in the area of string theory applied to QCD, two areas of the mainstream you utterly fail to understand.

You just make assertion after assertion. If you're so sure you're right why are you arguing with me on this forum? Why aren't you publishing your work in journals? Why have you failed to achieve anything in physics for decades?

I'll skip over the rest of your repetitive self advertising, except to point out yet another example of you redefining words to mean something different and thus illustrate your dishonesty,

The word “effective” concerns the obtained theoretical results in comparison to the experimental data. This means that the mainstream string/M theory is the ineffective theory.

When a physicist says "X is an effective theory for Y" they are not referring to experimental data but the fact X is a particular limit of Y, such as low energy or strong coupling. For example 11d supergravity is a weak coupling effective theory for M theory. The fact you're using a different definition, even after it's been pointed out to you, illustrates your dishonesty. When you have to redefine words to deceive people it's a sign you're knowingly dishonest.

I teach you, not you me!

What have you taught me? Nothing about relativity or quantum mechanics. Certainly nothing about string theory or QCD. You haven't said anything here pertaining to actual physics I didn't know when I was 16. Your qualitative grasp of mainstream physics is poor and your understanding of the quantitative stuff is non-existent, there is nothing worthwhile you have said which I could learn.

You are dishonest, you always was dishonest. For example, you two times banned me and NEXT wrote the untrue posts about me and my theory. Is it honest? This means that you are very bad man.

I have never banned you. On this forum I have been a moderator for less than a month and I've never moderated any other science related forum. You think I was responsible for you being banned from PhysForums, a claim you have no evidence for because it wasn't true. If I could ban people on PhysForums do you really think so many cranks would be there?

You want to blame someone for you being banned and you're blaming me because you have an axe to grind with me because I've repeatedly pointed out the flaws in your claims. You have no evidence, only personal views, and yet you accuse me of such things. That is dishonest.

As for your 'theory', the things I've written about it I stand by. Feel free to submit your work to a journal, I imagine they'll say much the same as me. You've had input from other people on other forums and they've said much the same as well. If you hadn't been told much the same you'd not be stuck whining on a forum. I come here for fun, I spend 8 hours+ each day off the forums doing physics and mathematics. The full extent of your contributions to physics is measured in terms of your forum posts, you have nothing else. And its been like that for years and by the looks of it it'll be that way till the day you die. What a productive way to spend your last several decades.

If I'm wrong in my assessment of you then please explain why you haven't been published in journals. Provide your evidence I banned you on PhysForums. Quantitatively derive string/M theory from your claims. I don't expect you to answer any of these, I know you'll just go into another repetition of your baseless claims.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

On PhysForum Science, there are my threads. The last my thread is titled “Liquid-like Plasma”. In the LAST your post in this thread (just after the post I was banned i.e. JUST AFTER this your post my access to this forum was suspended) you wrote:

AlphaNumeric; Posted: Mar 9 2010, 11:24 PM

Can’t we just get Sylwester banned now?

And in this moment I was banned.

What this means. This means that you at least forced moderators to ban me. You knew the decision before you wrote the above post.

The same you did on the nongeometric.wordpress.com .

What this means? This means that you are big liar. Your behaviour is fraudulent. Unless, you are the ill man and you do not know what you are doing.

In your last post in this thread, we can see nonsense only. In my posts, there are the scientific arguments. In your posts are only the invectives, personal remarks and encyclopaedic facts which do not prove that my scientific theory is incorrect. I try to show readers how we can solve within my scientific theory the basic unsolved problems within the mainstream theories. You write the nonsense WHICH EXPLAIN NOTHING AND YOU LIE AND LIE AND LIE.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Declaration


We do not need the wave functions (so equations for the wave functions also) to describe structure and interactions of STABLE STRUCTURES. The second principle of dynamics, Einstein relativity, Uncertainty Principle and coupling constants are enough to do this.
My revolution in physics follows from the fact that due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime, there appear the STABLE STRUCTURES i.e. my closed strings, the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. The simplified description of nature we can apply also to the electrically charged leptons and the other unstable particles for times shorter than the periods of spinning. The revolution concerns also the atom-like structure of baryons – there appears the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions.
Physicists cannot understand the above simple explanation because they assume that to describe nature from the beginning we need ALWAYS complex/complicated mathematics. My Everlasting Theory shows that such position on this question is improper.
My theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

And in this moment I was banned.

What this means. This means that you at least forced moderators to ban me. You knew the decision before you wrote the above post.

How would I force moderators to ban you? What power do I hold over them? You were trolling there, showing much the same lack of comprehension you show here. You'd previously gathered other warnings and you got your 5th warning, and thus ban, at that point. Clearly that wasn't an isolated instance and the moderator (which was Rpenner I believe) agreed with me about your contribution to the forum. I didn't speak to the moderator, I simply stated out loud what I was thinking. Plenty of people on that forum (and this and others) say things like "Can't we just ban X?" when someone is being a troll. Plenty of people in the physics forum here have called for people like Chinglu or MotorDaddy to be banned, that doesn't mean it immediately happens. However, generally the comments of the forum are a sign of a lack of contribution and the moderators generally agree.

On PhysForums you collected 5 warnings over time. The last one happened to be in a thread where you were being such a thick headed troll that I said out loud something along the lines of "Can't we just ban him?!", probably partly because you already had 4 out of 5 warnings so you were on your last strike. If I'd been a moderator you'd have been banned long before that.

Go on, why don't you tell me how I forced the moderators there to do my bidding. Please explain how I could force them to do anything. Also explain why I waited that long.

The same you did on the nongeometric.wordpress.com .

I didn't ban you, I said you weren't going to get past the spam filter if you couldn't engage in discussion. That was after you posted several length monologues just spouting your usual crap, precisely as you do here. You don't answer people's questions, you just spew out essentially a copy and paste advert for your nonsense. Since that contributes nothing there's no reason to post it. You're able to post on my Wordpress site provided you engage in relevant discussion and don't just do posts like this, which don't contribute to a discussion at all.

Time after time you get banned from places because you seem incapable of discussion and rather than take some damn responsibility you look to blame someone else.

In your last post in this thread, we can see nonsense only. In my posts, there are the scientific arguments.

I asked you several questions, none of which you've responded to. How can we have a discussion if you can't answer simple questions? I'll ask you again, why aren't you publishing your work in a journal? Why aren't you submitting it to journals, rather than posting it on forums?

In your posts are only the invectives, personal remarks

You're accusing me of being a communist schizophrenic engaged in a dishonest conspiracy of forcing websites to ban you. Hardly taking the high ground!

which do not prove that my scientific theory is incorrect

I've shown you haven't explained string/M theory, you knowingly misuse terminology to misrepresent your work and, most of all, I've shown your claims are self contradictory. Unfortunately not only have you not retorted me, you haven't even understood me.

I try to show readers how we can solve within my scientific theory the basic unsolved problems within the mainstream theories.

What readers? You're stuck in the alternative theories forum. Why aren't you getting your work out to journals? Remember on PhysForums when you admitted to spamming 1600 university academics in physics with your work? Why didn't that accomplish anything? Why have you failed at every turn? Why can't you answer even direct questions? Why do you have to redefine words to misrepresent yourself if your work is valid?

You mentioned your 'students' a few posts ago. What students do you have? Your CV says you taught primary school, where some children don't even do long division. What precisely is the nature of your teaching position for you to have students who can discuss research level (or so you like to think) work with you? You aren't an academic, you're not even a PhD. You don't have a research position either. Another lie?

Other than me no one even replies to you and I'm doing it to basically poke you in the eye with a stick for amusement. You keep talking about how soon you'll show everyone. You're like the guy who stands on street corners yelling the world is coming to an end soon and all the sinners will pay and only he will be raptured into heaven. He's probably got just as good a grasp of physics as you.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you indeed are an ill man. This Forum is not about my life, this Forum is about physics and astronomy. You quibble very smartly. You forgot to add that at the beginning there were your personal attacks and the invectives. I commented only your caddish behaviour. In my opinion, all know that you take advantage of your appointments to eliminate persons wiser than you are.
I explained in detail what we must change and add to the particle physics and cosmology to solve the hundreds unsolved basic problems within the mainstream theories. My “Declaration” shows why particle physics and cosmology need a revolution. I will not discuss with AlpaNumeric who completely do not understand THE OBVIOUS PROBLEMS and my simple explanations. Just I waste my time to teach him the obvious facts.
There are many other places in Internet where the ill AlphaNumeric does not offend people who try to show the weak points in the mainstream theories and show how we can solve the unsolved problems. Why administrators of many forums tolerate AlphaNumeric who mixes the encyclopaedic information with invectives?

So once more: Soon, due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions, there will be the revolution in particle physics and cosmology. The phase transitions lead to the NEW interpretation of the string/M theory and solve the basic unsolved problems within the mainstream theories. Moreover, there is not in existence an alternative way to do it. Just the truth will win.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

As expected you ignored all my questions. Where's your evidence I forced the moderators on PhysForums to ban you? Why haven't you published your work in a journal? Why do you redefine standard words? Why do you call me paranoid and schizophrenic when you're the one claiming a communist conspiracy in science, as well as me being involved in a conspiracy to get you banned from places? Don't you think it's hypocritical to complain I'm being personal while simultaneously saying I'm mentally ill?

I'm beginning to think you're projecting. You obviously know you can't justify your claims about me, your work or why you are stuck peddling it on forums, else you'd answer my questions. That proves you aren't at least utterly batshit crazy, else you'd attempt to answer them. Instead you always skip over direct questions, which means you know you can't answer them.

If I'm such a waste of your time why aren't you spending that time sending your work to journals? Besides, who else are you going to talk to, not like anyone else here even replies to you. I suspect that's why you posting the "I've explained string/M theory!" claim. You know it'd be a reply from me and if I don't reply to you you're stuck talking to yourself and then it's obvious, even to you, how little anyone cares about you.

Actually, seeing as you've repeatedly completely failed to answer direct, relevant simple questions and you clearly are incapable of honest discussion I'll leave this thread. I wouldn't be surprised in the slightest if you dialled up your nonsense laughable claims in an attempt to get attention. Don't worry, you won't be the first hack to do that. You'll stomp your feet and proclaim that soon everyone will see the truth, all the while failing to get your work published and therefore never getting read by the academic community. Thus far your only contact with the academic community is through posters on this forum like me, or when you spammed 1600 academic emails. Even if your work is right (which it isn't) no one in the research community will ever work on it if all you ever do is whine about it on forums.

You're heading down a path where you continue to waste decades of your time accomplishing nothing.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, below is my verse about mathematics entitled “ZERO”

ZERO

Georgene, are you under the WEATHER?
Are you, sweetheart, very ILL?
Are your ears in a proper distance, not too short?
Your IQ is less than zero.
Sub-human?
Hi Georgene, hi Georgene,
I love your short-sightedness
and the brains of a canary.

AlphaNumeric, can you see that my ‘poetry’ is such beautiful as your posts?
In the future, because of my Everlasting Theory and your ‘beautiful’ posts, this verse will be very famous.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

Congratulations, you've shown the kind of person you are. You're attempting to intimidate me by saying you know my real name, which is George, including my surname, which is a contatination of the last words in the first two lines, which you deliberately capitalise. And I'm male, so changing my name to a female version is something I'd expect a 5 year old to consider immature.

You've shown that when you can't provide any reply to simple questions or retort simple criticisms then you resort to trying to scare your detractors away. I've not been silent on my name on this forum. Hacks like Magneto know who I am, after I proved I have the publications I claims by linking to them. I'm pretty sure I'm supposed to be mentioned in a few hacks 'publications' when they disprove all of science You're just the latest.

Your 'poem' calls me all sorts of names. Coupled with the accusation you've made that I'm a paranoid schizophrenic, I hardly think you're taking the high ground. Do you really want people seeing you calling people names like that, accusing them of actions you have no evidence for? You call me paranoid but you're the one who sees conspiracies everywhere.

You seem to love projecting your issues on others. Clearly it's a defence mechanism, probably much the same as proclaiming you're a physics whiz is a defence against realising a lack of accomplishment in your life.

You've shown your true colours in this thread and if you think you want to draw people's attention to that then so be it. You'll only continue to fail to accomplish anything and saying "I know your name!" isn't going to change that.

 

[James R]

Moderator note: Sylwester Kornowski has been banned from sciforums for 3 days for insulting another member. Also, posting private information without permission is a breach of the site rules.

Members are advised to familiarise themselves with the forum rules prior to posting.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Your 'poem' calls me all sorts of names.

The Georgene = Math has sense whereas the Georgene = GEORGE has no sense. See my explanation and the correct interpretation of the verse in my next post. Can you see that thinking is sometime delusive and leads astray? The same is in the mainstream string/M theory.
Of course, you can say that you know that I think the same about math and you (this is not true because I love the simple and complex math and, of course, physics but I do not love you) or that the verse is a manipulation. But can we prove it?

BTW: Can you see the manipulation in your posts? Awful. You still write the DOGMA about the complex math in physics, the nonsense about my theory and invectives. I only try to teach you to be better and wiser.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

James R, can you see that AlphaNumeric insulted me the first? See:

…..straw man…..
…..you are completely dense…..
…..Go you!.....
…..you a liar…..
…..It even makes me call into question your basic comprehension skills and IQ…..
…..The fact you're daft enough…..

And so on.

Is it not an insulting me? Are on this Forum the different rules for moderators and members?
Why AlphaNumeric can write: “I am PhD…. you are dense! Why he can write the hundreds times the DOGMA that only complex math can describe the beginning of nature? I proved in my book that it is untrue. Can he call in question my education and big achievements, can he call in question my theoretical results (a few hundreds) consistent with experimental data, can he call in question the fact that the number of parameters in my Everlasting Theory (6 + 1 = 7) is at least 3 times smaller than in the SM? Can he call in question my new interpretation of the string/M theory? You know, there is my book. AlphaNumeric cannot prove that my theory is incorrect so he insults me. Why he can write lies and the untrue? This is the mean behaviour. He is the provocator. James R, can you see it? Can you see, for example, even if we assume that my interpretation of the verse ZERO is incorrect, that the ‘IQ’ at the first appeared in AlphaNumeric post? He many times posted private information about me with the caddish comment. Why did you not intervene? This lasted longer than the happy days!

AlphaNumeric writes about some achievement of the mainstream string/M theory. All know that TODAY there is no achievement because there are too many solutions. Today the area of AlphaNumeric investigation, i.e. the mainstream string/M theory, is useless. He is the advocate on his behalf. My theory via my phase transitions (i.e. via the modified string/M theory) leads to the experimental data ONLY. This is the achievement via simple math. I just changed the higher dimensions onto the number of elements in the phase spaces and there are the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. In such way, I eliminated the complex math from the string/M theory. For example, the Kac-Moody algebra is useless in my theory to obtain the theoretical results consistent with experimental data and all can see it in my book. But AlphaNumeric cannot accept this obvious fact. My very big success, i.e. the fact that my simple string/M theory leads to the experimental data ONLY, causes that AlphaNumeric with bigotry attacks my Everlasting Theory. This is the reason why there appear such many invectives. AlphaNumeric knows that a victory of my theory will be a defeat for him because then his papers will be useless.

All can see the emotions and lack of logic in the AlphaNumeric posts i.e. there dominate the invectives and private information about me. I wrote the verse ‘ZERO’ to stop writing by AlpaNumeric the DOGMA about complex math in physics, especially in the string/M theory. There is the double code in the verse.
First: AlphaNumeric decoded his name, not me. This means that I did not post private information about him. He decoded his name many times in Internet. This means that many people know his real name. But most important is the fact that his real name was in my verse coded.
Second: The correct interpretation of my verse is as follows. The Georgene = Math has sense whereas the Georgene = GEORGE has no sense (just illusive, just imaginary) because he is not my sweetheart and I do not love him. All know it. I even do not like him. Moreover, there are not the capital letters. Can you see also that the family name I wrote exactly? Moreover, in the front, I wrote that the verse is about the math. So why there is the Georgene, not some other first/given name? Just to show the mistakes in the AlphaNumeric COMPLEX logic. I like to teach and to breed, especially arrogant and ill-bred young people as AlphaNumeric. I can say that I am very good teacher and form master because I received for this tens rewards and prize. The two first lines we should interpret as follows: Math in the mainstream theories partially does not describe correctly nature because there dominates the DOGMA defended by AlphaNumeric. The all next lines we should interpret as follows: Math is only the UNTHINKING INSTRUMENT needed to describe nature. But we love math because it is very useful to describe nature. I tried to show that we should not treat the complex mathematics in physics as a religion. Sometimes the math in physics should be very simple, sometimes complex. I showed that the FOUNDATIONS of the string/M theory, particle physics and cosmology are mathematically very simple. Such math indeed solves all unsolved basic problems within the mainstream theories. There appear the superluminal neutrinos also. I calculated the physical constants too. All can see it in my book. THIS IS TRUE. I described very difficult physical problems applying very simple math. AlphaNumeric still writes that it is impossible but there is no scientific evidence.

I wrote many times following questions to AlphaNumeric: “Where in my book is the eighth parameter or more than the 7? Can you show which theoretical result, from the a few hundreds in my Everlasting Theory, is not calculated from the initial 7 parameters only?”
And there is no LOGIC answer. So what is AlphaNumeric doing? He still writes the DOGMA about the complex math in physics or the nonsense about my theory or the invectives.
James R, can you force AlphaNumeric to stop to write the tremendous number of the lies and invectives? I am very quiet man but I cannot tolerate the caddish behaviour of AlphaNumeric. The lies could make nervous even St. Peter. I am not a Saint. Just AlphaNumeric as the moderator compromises this Forum.

BTW: I cannot find at least one AlphaNumeric paper published in scientific journal concerning the string/M theory or his PhD thesis. Can it be true that there is no one such paper? Maybe this is the main reason of his caddish behaviour. Can AlphaNumeric or readers write the links to such papers if, of course, they are in existence?
I published my book a few times. The books are in two libraries. I have the confirmations. The last version ISBN 978-83-933105-0-0 (2011) is on my website (126 pages A4). There is also very high probability that some scientific journal will publish my paper titled “Neutrino Speed”. They asked me to send the paper. Of course, I know that it can mean nothing. But….

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Can I eliminate the DOGMAS in the AlphaNumeric posts via the very simple and didactic verses?


Zounds

Sizeless points?
Cosmos from nothingness?
Or structureless eternal pieces of space
and their eternal motions?
Nothingness means nothingness.
Negative gravity needs positive energy.
Mountain needs spacetime.
Depression needs spacetime.
Nothingness is nothingness.


Nature

Nature is crying:
I am mathematically very simple!
Add to the time the 3 spatial dimensions only.
Can you see the phase transitions everywhere?
Spacetime transforms to the STABLE objects too.
Can you see the atom-like structure everywhere?
Baryons have orbits.
Nucleons produce the particle zoo
and emit superluminal neutrinos.
God did this via 6 + 1 = 7 ‘days’.


Mollusc

Mollusc?
Do not cry, do not ask.
God knows what the best for you (JP II).
Physics was the first.


God

Time is linear motion.
Space is real volume.
I am the part of spacetime.
Is God the spacetime?
Can God manipulate it?
Can God destroy it?
Timeless sphere surrounds heaven.


Eternity

Infinite cosmos.
Probability equal to zero.
God.
Important but short life.
Many names in God’s bad books.
Eternity wins, eternity wins, eternity wins….


The nature is very simple so math describing it must be very simple so the verses are very simple too.
Today, i.e. 2011-11-11, in Poland is the magic day. This is the National Day of Independence. It is the 93 anniversary. Today I regained my independence on this Forum too. Is it some coincidence only?

 

[AlphaNumeric]

I was going to write a long response but then thought I'd cut it down a lot else you'd just ignore it all. I'll skip your usual redefining of words, misrepresentations, lies about what I've said about your work and concentrate on some of the more blatant dishonest in regards to what I've supposedly said about you.

He many times posted private information about me with the caddish comment. Why did you not intervene? This lasted longer than the happy days!

What private information?

This isn't rhetorical, I want you to explicitly state what information I have said about you which is private. Your username is your name and you constantly refer to your website, on which you have your CV and other information about yourself. Other than me saying you taught school kids (which is on your CV) I haven't said anything about you.

Provide a link to such a post or retract you claim for being a lie. If you ignore this request I'll report you again.

For example, the Kac-Moody algebra is useless in my theory to obtain the theoretical results consistent with experimental data and all can see it in my book.

Then you haven't reproduced (and thus haven't explained) string theory because the Kac-Moody algebras play an essential part in the behaviour of string oscillations. Without that you haven't actually got quantised string oscillators and thus haven't got string theory.

It's like claiming you own a dog when the animal you point at has 2 legs, lays eggs, has a bill and is covered in feathers. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and ****s like a duck calling it a dog is dishonest.

All can see the emotions and lack of logic in the AlphaNumeric posts i.e. there dominate the invectives and private information about me.

If you cannot substantiate your claim I posted private information about you you're being dishonest.

“Where in my book is the eighth parameter or more than the 7? Can you show which theoretical result, from the a few hundreds in my Everlasting Theory, is not calculated from the initial 7 parameters only?”

I've explained your conceptual inconsistency, you have never shown you even understand it.

BTW: I cannot find at least one AlphaNumeric paper published in scientific journal concerning the string/M theory or his PhD thesis. Can it be true that there is no one such paper? Maybe this is the main reason of his caddish behaviour. Can AlphaNumeric or readers write the links to such papers if, of course, they are in existence?

I'm sorry you have poor Googling skills but it really isn't that hard. It's not like my name is John Smith. I guess you're not used to actually reading published papers.

As I said, if you cannot provide an example where I post private information about you then retract your claim. I can't even think what private information I know about you other than what I read on your website, which you repeatedly direct people to and have done so for years.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you just should write the links to your papers in the scientific journals.
AlphaNumeric, you are not strong in thinking. James R wrote that I published private information about you i.e. your real name (this is not true because your name was coded). But assume that I wrote your real name. What this means? This means that private information about me not published on THIS Forum by MYSELF is the private information.
Moreover, the sense of the cited sentence by you is different.
I wrote:

“He many times posted private information about me WITH THE CADDISH COMMENT.”

You showed that you completely do not understand what you are reading. Do you understand that in this sentence the words “with the caddish comment” are MOST IMPORTANT?

James R, can you see that AlphaNumeric as the moderator still compromises this forum? I tens times urge AlphaNumeric to stop write my private information WITH THE CADDISH COMMENT. He cannot! Why you tolerate it? He behaves scandalously. In his posts still are the invectives, there are no scientific arguments, he does not understand the reading texts. James R, can you see that there is something wrong? You should help him. I write it very seriously.