Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, your last post again is the trolling-type post. Moreover, you are big liar. You still compromise yourself as the PhD. Your mind is closed for new ideas. You do not understand the physics. You even do not understand mathematics because you claim that from infinite number of sizeless points we can build real line or real surface or real volume.

The experiments suggest that there is in existence an asymptotic ‘freedom’ but ORIGIN of it is different. In year 2008, my Everlasting Theory described all types of interactions, so the strong interactions also (your posts showed that you never read my book, maybe one page in 2012), in the low-energy regime. In Internet, we can find the previous versions of my book. I never changed the initial conditions. There still is the perfect gas composed of tachyons (since 1997), there still are the phase transitions (1997) which lead to the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model (January 2012) and there still are the atom-like structure of baryons (1985). Over time, there appeared the new chapters and now there are the 147 pages A4.

My theory of the asymptotic 'freedom' differs radically from the model presented within the Standard Model. No one suggested such solution. In my theory, the asymptotic freedom follows from the Uncertainty Principle. Whereas the ‘confinement’ follows from the gluon --> photons ‘transitions’ and lead to the Feigenbaum constant 4.669… applied in the theory of chaos. In reality, there is not in existence the ‘confinement’. My theory of the asymptotic ‘freedom’ (there is the asymptote for the running coupling for strong-weak interactions 0.1139 so the ‘freedom’ is illusive) and the ‘confinement’ (the ‘confinement’ is illusive as well) leads to the experimental data and contrary to the mainstream QCD, my theory is correct for the low-energy regime also. I wrote how we must reformulate the mainstream QCD.

Now my theory is in the viXra so it will be very easy to show the unblushing lies which appear and will appear in the AlphaNumeric and other posts. For example, in his last post we can read as follows.

Looks like the get out clauses have started appearing. Suddenly there's caveats and special cases which mean that Sylwester's work can be consistent with any result from the experiments. Faster than light? Why Sylwester said so! Slower than light? Sylwester said so!

My book is in viXra since March 6, 2012. The last results concerning the Icarus test appeared on March 16, 2012. This means that I did not change anything since March 6, 2012. In my book, we can read as follows.

Highest superluminal neutrino speed we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of muons inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1.000071c) i.e. for lower energies of collisions of nucleons.
Medium superluminal neutrino speeds we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of relativistic pions inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1.0000239c) i.e. for medium energies of collisions of nucleons.
Lowest superluminal neutrino speeds we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of W bosons inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1 + 2•10^-9)c i.e. for highest energies of collisions of nucleons. Such speeds had neutrinos emitted in the supernova SN 1987A explosion.
I wrote about the three different superluminal speeds of neutrinos and the NATURAL broadening of their superluminal speeds (it follows from the atom-like structure of baryons) a few months ago – see my post #38 in my thread “Neutrino Speed” on this Forum posted on September 30, 2011. Can you see now how big liar is AlphaNumeric?

Recapitulation
The neutrinos can be the superluminal particles but TODAY they are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles i.e. their mass does not depend on their speed. The function describing the superluminal speeds of neutrinos is the staircase-like function. There are the three stairs: for muons, for relativistic pions (their mass follows from the structure of the core of baryons) and for W bosons. When energy of colliding nucleons increases then the superluminal speed of neutrinos is CLOSER TO THE SPEED OF LIGHT. If, for example, in the Icarus test dominated the neutrinos from the weak decays of the W bosons in the strong fields of nucleons then the measured maximum superluminal speed of such neutrinos is (1 + 2•10^-9)c. Probably in the Icarus test we cannot measure neutrino speed with such accuracy. Maybe it is the reason why experimentalists claim that the neutrinos cannot be superluminal. But we can see that such conclusion is incorrect.

We can see that the AlphaNumeric last post contains the lies and he is trolling. There are much more such posts. Why such awful behaviour is on sufferance on this Forum?

 

[origin]

Highest superluminal neutrino speed we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of muons inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1.000071c) i.e. for lower energies of collisions of nucleons.
Medium superluminal neutrino speeds we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of relativistic pions inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1.0000239c) i.e. for medium energies of collisions of nucleons.
Lowest superluminal neutrino speeds we obtain for neutrinos from the weak decays of W bosons inside strong fields (maximum speed is 1 + 2•10^-9)c i.e. for highest energies of collisions of nucleons. Such speeds had neutrinos emitted in the supernova SN 1987A explosion.

So now all neutrinos are not superluminal, OK. But according to the pargraph above the neutrinos in the OPERA experiment should be, correct?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

So now all neutrinos are not superluminal, OK. But according to the pargraph above the neutrinos in the OPERA experiment should be, correct?

The superluminal speeds of neutrinos observed in the OPERA experiment are for the defined energies of colliding protons and for defined intensity neutrino mode. I claim that the above initial conditions caused that the intensity of the neutrinos from the weak decays of the relativistic pions (their relativistic mass is defined by my theory) in the strong fields was sufficiently high to produce the superluminal neutrinos moving with the maximum speed equal to 1.0000239c.

Probably the initial conditions in the ICARUS and OPERA experiments were not the same. Maybe there was too low intensity neutrino mode or something else. You know, the weak decays must be inside the strong field.

 

[origin]

The superluminal speeds of neutrinos observed in the OPERA experiment are for the defined energies of colliding protons and for defined intensity neutrino mode. I claim that the above initial conditions caused that the intensity of the neutrinos from the weak decays of the relativistic pions (their relativistic mass is defined by my theory) in the strong fields was sufficiently high to produce the superluminal neutrinos moving with the maximum speed equal to 1.0000239c.

Probably the initial conditions in the ICARUS and OPERA experiments were not the same. Maybe there was too low intensity neutrino mode or something else. You know, the weak decays must be inside the strong field.

That is the nice thing about pseudo-science you can have it both ways. No matter what the outcome of the experiment you will claim it supports your ideas.

Imagine my surprise that this is your position .

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

That is the nice thing about pseudo-science you can have it both ways. No matter what the outcome of the experiment you will claim it supports your ideas.

Imagine my surprise that this is your position .

I can see that you do not understand my explanation.

So once more:
Strictly determined initial conditions lead to only ONE central speed of the superluminal neutrinos and to the strictly defined broadening of this central value. But different initial conditions lead to different central values. For muons (MINOS) or relativistic pions (OPERA; mass of the relativistic pions is strictly determined 727.4 MeV/4 = 181.8 MeV) or W bosons (SN 1987A) decaying inside the strong fields there is only ONE central speed of neutrinos for each type of the listened particles. This means that there are only three different central speeds and they depend on energy. We obtain the staircase-like function. There are only the three stairs! Maximum neutrino speed for the OPERA experiment should be 1.0000239c and it was and will be. There are not other solutions i.e. there is only ONE maximum neutrino speed for the OPERA experiment.

If there is a remnant/neutron-star of a supernova explosion then the speed of superluminal neutrinos is the same as for the SN 1987A but we must take into account the additional delays following from different structures of the supernovae.

 

[origin]

I can see that you do not understand my explanation.

So once more:
Strictly determined initial conditions lead to only ONE central speed of the superluminal neutrinos and to the strictly defined broadening of this central value. But different initial conditions lead to different central values. For muons (MINOS) or relativistic pions (OPERA; mass of the relativistic pions is strictly determined 727.4 MeV/4 = 181.8 MeV) or W bosons (SN 1987A) decaying inside the strong fields there is only ONE central speed of neutrinos for each type of the listened particles. This means that there are only three different central speeds and they depend on energy. We obtain the staircase-like function. There are only the three stairs! Maximum neutrino speed for the OPERA experiment should be 1.0000239c and it was and will be. There are not other solutions i.e. there is only ONE maximum neutrino speed for the OPERA experiment.

If there is a remnant/neutron-star of a supernova explosion then the speed of superluminal neutrinos is the same as for the SN 1987A but we must take into account the additional delays following from different structures of the supernovae.

Hell, I still don't understand your explanations, your as hard to pin down as as an eel in a greased kettle. The boundries around your ideas are very fuzzy and seem to move. NOW you are saying that there is only ONE MAXIMUM speed for the OPERA neutrinos. That sounds suspiciously like you are saying if the neutrinos are not superluminal that will still agree with your 'theory'. Is that correct? Yes or No will suffice as an answer.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Hell, I still don't understand your explanations, your as hard to pin down as as an eel in a greased kettle. The boundries around your ideas are very fuzzy and seem to move. NOW you are saying that there is only ONE MAXIMUM speed for the OPERA neutrinos. That sounds suspiciously like you are saying if the neutrinos are not superluminal that will still agree with your 'theory'. Is that correct? Yes or No will suffice as an answer.

I always said and wrote that there is only one central and only one maximum speed for the OPERA neutrinos! See my book, pages 105-108 or my previous posts on this Forum. The central value is 1.0000169c whereas the maximum value is 1.0000239c. The 169 multiplied by sqrt(2) is 239. The sqrt(2) follows from the atom-like structure of baryons so of protons as well. Similarly is for MINOS, respectively 1.00005c and 1.000071c and for the supernova SN 1987A, respectively 1.0000000014c and 1.0000000020c (the last speed leads to the observed time distance 3 hours).

Most important is the fact that the superluminal neutrinos are produced ONLY in specific conditions i.e. the weak decays of the muons (MINOS), of relativistic pions 181.8 MeV (OPERA) and W bosons (SN 1987A) must be inside the colliding protons i.e. in strong fields. If we change the initial conditions in such way that there will DOMINATE the neutrinos from the weak decays OUTSIDE the strong fields then the neutrinos will not be the superluminal particles.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, your last post again is the trolling-type post. Moreover, you are big liar. You still compromise yourself as the PhD. Your mind is closed for new ideas. You do not understand the physics. You even do not understand mathematics because you claim that from infinite number of sizeless points we can build real line or real surface or real volume.

I forget, which one of us is actually paid to do maths and physics?

As for the real line made from points, the concepts of uncountability, Aleph One, cardinalities and continuums are taught to 1st year undergraduates. The fact you don't understand them shows how poor your education is and how limited your understanding is.

Now my theory is in the viXra so it will be very easy to show the unblushing lies which appear and will appear in the AlphaNumeric and other posts. For example, in his last post we can read as follows.

Being on viXra is hardly a good thing. It's basically an admission of it being nonsense, because you can't get into proper journals.

We can see that the AlphaNumeric last post contains the lies and he is trolling. There are much more such posts. Why such awful behaviour is on sufferance on this Forum?

It's not my fault you can't support your claims and back up your arguments. It's not my fault you're deliberately dishonest when you abuse standard terminology like 'effective theory', even after you've had your mistake explained to you. It's not my fault you don't understand how your own claims are self contradicting. It isn't trolling to point those out. If you can't handle discourse about the short comings of your work then science isn't for you.

Well, it's obvious science isn't for you.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, your posts will compromise you forever. In your last post we can find only the nonsense, as usually. Sometimes we can find in your posts the encyclopaedic knowledge, just Wikipedia. But mostly you are TROLLING.

You do not understand physics. Assume that we have some real/physical volume and we divide it and divide and divide. Can you see that the total volume of the smaller and smaller parts is STILL the same as at the beginning? The total volume never disappears. Can you see that physically you cannot divide the initial volume infinite number times? Just SUCH infinity has no sense in physics. In physics we cannot start from the sizeless points because total volume even of infinite number of them is still equal to zero. There never will appear a real/physical object. Real volumes and their motions are the attributes of each PHYSICAL SPACETIME. Inertial masses/real-volumes are the more fundamental physical quantity than the massless energies which are the excited states of the real volumes. Correct ultimate theory of nature cannot start from moving sizeless points because in physics such points have no sense.

 

[origin]

I always said and wrote that there is only one central and only one maximum speed for the OPERA neutrinos! See my book, pages 105-108 or my previous posts on this Forum. The central value is 1.0000169c whereas the maximum value is 1.0000239c. The 169 multiplied by sqrt(2) is 239. The sqrt(2) follows from the atom-like structure of baryons so of protons as well. Similarly is for MINOS, respectively 1.00005c and 1.000071c and for the supernova SN 1987A, respectively 1.0000000014c and 1.0000000020c (the last speed leads to the observed time distance 3 hours).

Most important is the fact that the superluminal neutrinos are produced ONLY in specific conditions i.e. the weak decays of the muons (MINOS), of relativistic pions 181.8 MeV (OPERA) and W bosons (SN 1987A) must be inside the colliding protons i.e. in strong fields. If we change the initial conditions in such way that there will DOMINATE the neutrinos from the weak decays OUTSIDE the strong fields then the neutrinos will not be the superluminal particles.

Ah ha. So the answer is yes! If neutrinos are superluminal or if they are less than the speed of light, both cases will support your hypothesis. Well that was convenient.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Ah ha. So the answer is yes! If neutrinos are superluminal or if they are less than the speed of light, both cases will support your hypothesis. Well that was convenient.

Origin, your conclusion is incorrect.

If in some experiment the intensity neutrino mode is, for example, one hundred million times lower than in some previous experiment then there is very high probability that the new conclusions will not be the same. Lack of sufficiently high density of information often leads astray.

It is true also for shorter and shorter impulses. Such impulses can eliminate some important phenomena/interactions. For example, impulses which last shorter than some important weak decays can eliminate almost all neutrinos from such weak decays.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, your posts will compromise you forever. In your last post we can find only the nonsense, as usually. Sometimes we can find in your posts the encyclopaedic knowledge, just Wikipedia.

Are we seeing a little of your mentality there? As my last post said, its literally my job to research maths and physics. If all I did was spout Wikipedia I'd not have a job! Unlike yourself some of us have to produce working results to real world problems.

But mostly you are TROLLING.

Pointing out your ignorance is not trolling. I've tried to engage you in discussion but you're unwilling to have an honest discussion. You can't even use terminology properly.

You do not understand physics. Assume that we have some real/physical volume and we divide it and divide and divide. Can you see that the total volume of the smaller and smaller parts is STILL the same as at the beginning? The total volume never disappears. Can you see that physically you cannot divide the initial volume infinite number times? Just SUCH infinity has no sense in physics. In physics we cannot start from the sizeless points because total volume even of infinite number of them is still equal to zero. There never will appear a real/physical object. Real volumes and their motions are the attributes of each PHYSICAL SPACETIME. Inertial masses/real-volumes are the more fundamental physical quantity than the massless energies which are the excited states of the real volumes. Correct ultimate theory of nature cannot start from moving sizeless points because in physics such points have no sense.

Translation : If anyone disagrees with you then they don't understand physics, even when their work produces real world results.

Seriously, you're failing to understand mathematics 101.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, can you write something interesting? Can you write something NEW about physics or mathematics, not the personal attacks? Just try.

 

[origin]

Origin, your conclusion is incorrect.

If in some experiment the intensity neutrino mode is, for example, one hundred million times lower than in some previous experiment then there is very high probability that the new conclusions will not be the same. Lack of sufficiently high density of information often leads astray.

It is true also for shorter and shorter impulses. Such impulses can eliminate some important phenomena/interactions. For example, impulses which last shorter than some important weak decays can eliminate almost all neutrinos from such weak decays.

OK. So if the experiment is run with the same energy levels for the proton beam, then if the neutrinos are not superluminal, this will disprove at least part of your 'theory'.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

AlphaNumeric, can you write something interesting? Can you write something NEW about physics or mathematics, not the personal attacks? Just try.

I'm bound by confidentiality clauses so I am unable to tell you the details of my work. Suffice to say there are things in space I've been involved in. Some of us are more than talk and delusion.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The term “space” means “pieces of space which have volume not equal to zero” so they have inertial mass as well. The term “time” means “collisions of the moving pieces of space”. There is not in existence time without the moving pieces of space i.e. without the pieces of inertial mass. Inertial mass is the most fundamental physical quantity. It is more fundamental than motions and energy. Without pieces of inertial mass nature cannot be in existence. This means that the Higgs mechanism is not needed.

The photons are massless because they are the excited states (i.e. the rotational energies) of the Einstein spacetime components. In the ground state, the Einstein spacetime components are moving with speed equal to the speed of light c and have inertial and gravitational masses. The Principle of Equivalence concerns the Einstein spacetime components but does not concern the particles smaller than the Planck length i.e. the sizes smaller than about 10^-35 m. We can see that the Einstein spacetime components have mass and speed equal to the c but the Lagrangian of the ground state of the Einstein spacetime TODAY cannot change. This means that the ground state of the Einstein spacetime is invisible for detectors. This spacetime behaves as a nonentity but there arise the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, i.e. the pairs of positive and negative masses. The Lagrangian of the ground state of the Einstein spacetime (the Einstein spacetime components consist of the superluminal closed strings) defines the LACKING dark energy.

There should be in existence very weak signal for energy 125 GeV because the massless electromagnetic energy 3.097 MeV, which appears in the atom-like structure of baryons, overlaps with an Einstein spacetime region which energy/mass is just 125 GeV. This means that there is mechanism which causes that the invisible for detectors region of the Einstein spacetime (which has mass) becomes VISIBLE for detectors. We can see the big difference between the above described mechanism and the Higgs mechanism. The Higgs mechanism says that massless energy transforms into mass. Such process is impossible. We can see that electromagnetic massless energy only can be a catalyst which transforms invisible for detectors mass into visible mass.

The Principle of General Covariance applied in the General Theory of Relativity is correct only partially. For strong interactions relativistic masses of sources and carriers of strong interactions do not transform the same. The strong interactions behave as if there were simultaneously two different reference frames. Within the Everlasting Theory I proved that we must introduce the term “dominating gravitational gradient”. Due to the law of conservation of spin of source and carrier of interactions, internal structure of, for example, proton moving in dominating gravitational gradient depends on its speed. This means that sometimes relativistic mass is not the relativistic effect only. Sometimes same laws of physics do not look the same in all reference frames. This was postulated by Lifshitz and Landau. So once more: For proton accelerated in a dominating gravitational gradient, the ratio of mass of proton to mass of carrier of strong interactions increases for the co-moving observer. There appears the running coupling.

To unify the Quantum Physics with the General Theory of Relativity we need more fundamental theory than these two theories. The Everlasting Theory is the most fundamental theory which leads to the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics and shows which interpretations are incorrect. Contrary to the Quantum Physics and General Theory of Relativity, in the Everlasting Theory the bare particles have very rich internal structure. Because internal structure of the bare particles is neglected in the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics so unifications of these theories without the Everlasting Theory is impossible.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The term “space” means “pieces of space which have volume not equal to zero” so they have inertial mass as well.

You define a word by using it in its own definition? Good one.

This spacetime behaves as a nonentity but there arise the virtual particle-antiparticle pairs, i.e. the pairs of positive and negative masses.

Particle-antiparticle pairs do not necessarily have positive and negative masses. They have different energy signs but that isn't the same as the signs on their masses.

I always find it amusing when you start spitting out comments like this after some experiment has found something. You're doing it now with 125GeV signals observed by colliders, just like you did the whole "My theory says the speed of the neutrino is ...." and then gave something a tiny bit above the supposed observed neutrino velocity. It's always after the fact with you, so you can go around saying "I predicted that!" in a dishonest manner.

Unfortunately for you the retraction of the neutrino speeds undermined your claims, not that they needed any more undermining.

To unify the Quantum Physics with the General Theory of Relativity we need more fundamental theory than these two theories. The Everlasting Theory is the most fundamental theory which leads to the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics and shows which interpretations are incorrect. Contrary to the Quantum Physics and General Theory of Relativity, in the Everlasting Theory the bare particles have very rich internal structure. Because internal structure of the bare particles is neglected in the General Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics so unifications of these theories without the Everlasting Theory is impossible.

Still with the grand claims you cannot justify. Submitted your work to any journals recently or you just going to keep doing the forum rounds every so often, asserting people like myself will rue the day we laughed your claims out of the room?

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I always find it amusing when you start spitting out comments like this after some experiment has found something. You're doing it now with 125GeV signals observed by colliders, just like you did the whole "My theory says the speed of the neutrino is ...." and then gave something a tiny bit above the supposed observed neutrino velocity. It's always after the fact with you, so you can go around saying "I predicted that!" in a dishonest manner.

I never wrote that I predicted the 125 GeV signals. This part of my theory was published on viXra on March 6, 2012. All can check up it. But a complete theory should lead to the all experimental data and my Everlasting Theory does it.


The last a piece of news concerning the speeds of neutrinos is as follows: “Neutrinos don't outpace light, but they do shape-shift.”

So now scientists claim that we have three families of neutrinos with different masses and they all are moving with the speed of light c i.e. the same as the massless photons. “Superbly!” Moreover, they claim that neutrinos “do shape-shift”. What it means? Is there a broadening of the neutrino speed? If it is true (we must wait for the exact experimental data on base of sufficiently high density of information) then what phenomena are responsible for this effect?

I wrote many times that the superluminal neutrinos appear only when the weak decays take place inside the strong fields inside baryons. Such neutrinos are rare among neutrinos from the all weak decays. This means that the rare neutrinos moving with the superluminal speeds are on fronts of the “shape-shifts” only.

AlphaNumeric, why you still write the untrue? It is probably because you do not understand what you are reading.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

The last a piece of news concerning the speeds of neutrinos is as follows: “Neutrinos don't outpace light, but they do shape-shift.”

So now scientists claim that we have three families of neutrinos with different masses and they all are moving with the speed of light c i.e. the same as the massless photons. “Superbly!” Moreover, they claim that neutrinos “do shape-shift”. What it means? Is there a broadening of the neutrino speed? If it is true (we must wait for the exact experimental data on base of sufficiently high density of information) then what phenomena are responsible for this effect?

No, that isn't what they claim. Clearly you don't know what physicists say, which makes comments like this...

AlphaNumeric, why you still write the untrue? It is probably because you do not understand what you are reading.

... all the more deliciously ironic.

In fact, if you even understood basic relativity you'd know that cannot be what they say. In relativity if someone moves at the speed of light then it has no rest mass and conversely, if something has non-zero rest mass it cannot move at light speed. The deduction neutrinos have rest mass didn't come about because they were observed moving slower than light, we currently cannot distinguish their velocities from light speed, it's too close. Instead it was deduced by flavour oscillations in observations. We can manufacture particular flavour neutrinos and measure their flavours in detectors and they show a very specific length-related flavour oscillation.

I'm sorry that you don't bother to find out basic information about physics before making claims about it, it shows a general lack of intellectual curiosity or honesty on your part. Fortunately you clearly lack sufficient neural resources to have even the potential to do proper science so I suppose the bright side is you aren't actually squandering anything other than your time.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

... all the more deliciously ironic.

In fact, if you even understood basic relativity you'd know that cannot be what they say. In relativity if someone moves at the speed of light then it has no rest mass and conversely, if something has non-zero rest mass it cannot move at light speed. The deduction neutrinos have rest mass didn't come about because they were observed moving slower than light, we currently cannot distinguish their velocities from light speed, it's too close. Instead it was deduced by flavour oscillations in observations. We can manufacture particular flavour neutrinos and measure their flavours in detectors and they show a very specific length-related flavour oscillation.

AlphaNumeric, you as usually quibble and write the obvious things. It is obvious that I wrote about the actual experimental data concerning the neutrino speed, not about the special relativity. The experimental data are close to the speed of light c. There are not resting neutrinos or neutrinos moving with speed, for example, c/2. Authors of the mainstream theories claim that neutrinos have mass and that the General Theory of Relativity is always correct so we should observe in a pulse neutrinos moving with speeds from zero to almost the c. But TODAY the experimental data do not confirm it. The Everlasting Theory says that the carriers of the massless photons, i.e. the ENTANGLED BINARY systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of (the entanglement causes that photons, i.e. the rotational energies of the binary systems, are the wave packets), so the photons as well, are moving in the more fundamental spacetime, which I refer to as the Newtonian spacetime, with the speed c. The neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos interact weakly so the neutrinos are moving almost independently (the mainstream electroweak theory is incorrect in the low-energy regime). This means that generally the neutrinos are moving with the same speed as the binary systems of neutrinos. This means that the neutrinos, which have mass, generally are moving with the speed c. We will never see neutrinos which are moving with speeds LOWER than the c. Just the General Theory of Relativity is incomplete and partially incorrect (the Special Theory of Relativity as well). The Everlasting Theory shows that the neutrinos are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles so sometimes in the special conditions they can be the superluminal particles. Such neutrinos appear when the weak decays, for example of muons or W bosons, take place inside the strong fields inside baryons. There is the natural broadening in the spectrum of the superluminal speeds of neutrinos.

Recapitulation
Generally, the SR and GR are the correct theories because the Einstein spacetime components are moving with the speed c.
Neutrinos are the non-relativistic particles so sometimes they can move with superluminal speeds. We never will detect neutrinos moving with speeds lower than the c. The observed “oscillations” of the neutrinos are in fact the EXCHANGES of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of.
Spectrum of the neutrino speeds obtained in the collisions of nucleons for energies of neutrinos lower than about 200 GeV should look as follows. There should be the main peak for the speed equal to the c and there should be much lower and naturally broadened superluminal peak separated from the main peak.


When the General Theory of Relativity is correct? The Everlasting Theory shows that we must introduce new term “dominating gravitational gradient” because accelerated particles change their internal structure. The Everlasting Theory shows that the ratio of mass of source of the strong interactions to mass of carriers of the strong interactions changes as 1/(1 - vv/cc). This means that the Principle of General Covariance is strictly correct only for resting masses or moving with the same speed in dominating gravitational gradient and almost correct for bodies moving with speeds much lower than the speed of light c. For relativistic speeds in dominating gravitational gradient, an internal/co-moving observer can measure her/his relativistic speed in the dominating gravitational gradient.
We can see that without a reformulation we cannot unify the General Theory of Relativity with the strong interactions whereas, for example, the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model is correct because it concerns the part of the GR when the Principle of General Covariance is obligatory i.e. the solution (0, 0, 1) is for the resting structure in the dominating gravitational gradient. The approximate solution, i.e. (-1/3, 2/3, 2/3), leads to the sham quarks. The Kasner solution leads to the atom-like structure of baryons.

The main recapitulation is as follows.
The neutrinos are the non-relativistic particles (i.e. their mass does not depend on their speed) and sometimes they can be the superluminal particles. Minimum speed is c whereas maximum speed is 1.000071c. We never will observe neutrinos moving with speeds lower than the c (so resting as well) and today it is consistent with the experimental data. The Everlasting Theory shows why neutrinos have such “strange” properties.