SciForums.com > On the Fringe > Alternative Theories > Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory' PDA View Full Version : Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory' Post ReplyCreate New ThreadPages : [1] 2 Sylwester Kornowski10-05-11, 07:47 AM....Dark energy research may be a poor choice in that it is still speculative, but I am not seeing a strong case that the Nobel committee is far off course overall. The two biggest wrong conclusions within the mainstream theories caused by the wrong initial conditions are as follows: 1. That the Universe quite unexpectedly can accelerate its expansion. 2. That neutrinos, which carry the mass, cannot move with speeds higher than the massless photons and gluons i.e. than the c. The correct conclusions are as follows: 1. The dark energy is the a little compressed gas composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (they are moving with the speed c) i.e. the little compressed Einstein spacetime. The compression was due to the collapse of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang after the era of inflation. Such expansion is smooth whereas the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe is due to the neglected phenomena. A quite unexpected acceleration is impossible. 2. The Special Relativity concerns the objects composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not the neutrinos. When relativistic speed is equal to the c then spin speeds are equal to zero. Since there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin then there are the tremendous inflows of the binary systems of neutrinos, i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components, into the relativistic object. We can say that there is collapse of the Einstein spacetime. This causes that mass of such relativistic object should be infinite. Moreover, the electromagnetism is directly associated with the Einstein spacetime whereas the gravity only indirectly. Due to the internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos, they can produce the transverse waves only, i.e. in the Einstein spacetime the gravitational waves and gravitons cannot appear. Gravity is directly associated with the Newtonian spacetime (see the ET – there are the two spacetimes) whereas the gravitational constant G follows from the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Newtonian spacetime. AlphaNumeric10-05-11, 05:15 PMDue to the protuberances, we see the cosmic objects for which the redshift is higher than 1. But the Everlasting Theory shows that the Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos which are the carriers of the photons and gluons. There are more the gluons (8) than photons (1 – there are the left- and right-handed photons, i.e. 2 photons, but they behave the same) because the strong field and the carriers have the internal helicity whereas the electromagnetic field has not.Still repeating demonstrably false things. Well, I suppose you've been doing it for 20+ years, why stop now? And to refer to your assertions in the semi-third person by its name rather than just saying 'my hypothesis' is a little dishonest. Particularly because the name you've given it is 'The Everlasting Theory', an arrogantly delusional name if ever there was one (except perhaps compared to 'Super Principia Mathematica' by Magneto). And it's funny you talk about wrong initial conditions and conclusions given the fundamental contradiction in your work, dismissing the SM as nonsense while claiming you've correctly predicted one of its parameters, whose experimental value is dependent upon the SM! Sylwester Kornowski10-06-11, 04:17 AMAlphaNumeric, your ‘discussion’ is not logic. Can you for a moment leave behind my Everlasting Theory? Now, my questions are as follows: 1. Can we explain TODAY theoretically the ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe? No. This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’. 2. Can you explain theoretically within the SM the data obtained in the OPERA experiment? No. This means that the SM at least is incomplete but there is very high certainty that we will have to reject many fragments of this theory. 3. Can you calculate the exact mass of the up and down quarks within the QCD? No. You know, nature does not need computers to know how it shall behave. This suggests that the QCD is partially incorrect. 4. This is obvious that ultimate theory must lead to the all postulates applied in the SM and gravity and the initial conditions must lead to the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics. Can you do it within the SM? No. And so on….. Your knowledge is the encyclopaedic knowledge. We can find it in the thousands different places in Internet. You did not present at least one own idea to solve at least one basic unsolved problem. And now, a few sentences about my Everlasting Theory. My theory solves all basic unsolved problems. There are only 7 parameters. There are calculated the physical constants. I predicted that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – I began the thread “Neutrino Speed” on September 12, 2011 i.e. 11 days before the data from the OPERA experiment appeared in Internet. Within the ET I proved that there are in existence the 8 gluons and SHAM quarks Most of their properties differ from the properties of the quarks but the calculated masses of the 4 heaviest sham quarks are the same as the s, c, b and t quarks. Moreover, I showed that the quarks are not the ‘stars’. Most important is the atom-like structure of baryons and the gluon loops and gluon balls which masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. The atom-like structure of proton leads to the Feigenbaum constant 4.669… applied in the theory of chaos. You know, internal structure of particles should lead to the theory of chaos. And so on… AlphaNumeric10-06-11, 08:13 PMCan we explain TODAY theoretically the ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe? No. This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’.So if we cannot provide a model for something it doesn't exist? So the Sun didn't exist until we understood nuclear fusion? The Earth didn't go around the Sun until Newton 'invented' gravity? Gravity doesn't exist because we don't understand quantum gravity? Observing something doesn't require you understand it. After all, you observe things you don't understand all the time. Can you explain theoretically within the SM the data obtained in the OPERA experiment? No. This means that the SM at least is incomplete but there is very high certainty that we will have to reject many fragments of this theory.The SM is very complicated, not all of its implications and properties have been worked out, particularly in the area of neutrino physics. The SM may well explain it, just people haven't gotten around to computing all the relevant processes yet. For example, a lot of work was put into calculating proton related scattering processes in the last 10 years because it was relevant to the LHC. Before that people hadn't fully explored that part of the SM and computed what the SM said about such things. Simply writing down the Lagrangian doesn't mean you know everything about a system. It's easy to write down a gravitational Lagrangian but it took 200 years for someone to show 3 bodies behave chaotically. Can you calculate the exact mass of the up and down quarks within the QCD? No. You know, nature does not need computers to know how it shall behave. This suggests that the QCD is partially incorrect.We can't calculate them yet. Non-perturbative mathematics is not very well understood. This is another example of an unexplored area of the SM. And of course Nature doesn't need a computer, so what? That's a stupid criticism. This is obvious that ultimate theory must lead to the all postulates applied in the SM and gravity and the initial conditions must lead to the physical and mathematical constants applied in physics. Can you do it within the SM? No. And so on…..Where did I say the SM was the last word in theoretical physics? You'll be hard pressed to find anyone who thinks that. Great strawman. Maybe one day you'll come up with something relevant. Your knowledge is the encyclopaedic knowledge. We can find it in the thousands different places in Internet. You did not present at least one own idea to solve at least one basic unsolved problem. And now, a few sentences about my Everlasting Theory. My theory solves all basic unsolved problems. Except your delusions. There are calculated the physical constants.http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/measuring-coupling-strengths/ I predicted that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c – I began the thread “Neutrino Speed” on September 12, 2011 i.e. 11 days before the data from the OPERA experiment appeared in Internet. Within the ET I proved that there are in existence the 8 gluons and SHAM quarks Most of their properties differ from the properties of the quarks but the calculated masses of the 4 heaviest sham quarks are the same as the s, c, b and t quarks. Moreover, I showed that the quarks are not the ‘stars’. Most important is the atom-like structure of baryons and the gluon loops and gluon balls which masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. The atom-like structure of proton leads to the Feigenbaum constant 4.669… applied in the theory of chaos. You know, internal structure of particles should lead to the theory of chaos. And so on…Good old numerology, the cranks mathematics. Sylwester Kornowski10-07-11, 04:56 AMYou can write only the obvious things. So once more: AlphaNumeric, your ‘discussion’ is not logic and not essential. And now I will prove it. So if we cannot provide a model for something it doesn't exist?..... As all can see, I wrote: “….This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’”. This means that the ‘acceleration’ CAN BE in existence or CAN BE NOT. My theory proves that the ‘can be not’ is correct. Observing something doesn't require you understand it. After all, you observe things you don't understand all the time. But never was the Nobel Prize for such ‘discoveries’ i.e. for a discovery type maybe or maybe not. We can't calculate them yet. Non-perturbative mathematics is not very well understood. This is another example of an unexplored area of the SM. Non-perturbative mathematics is very well understood for people who read my electronic book http://www.cosmology-particles.pl Where did I say the SM was the last word in theoretical physics? Most funny is the fact that my theory solves the all unsolved problems within the SM but people as you try to change the fruitless SM. Within the SM initial conditions we never will explain why neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c (BTW: maximum neutrino speed calculated within the Everlasting Theory is 1.000072c). Good old numerology, the cranks mathematics. Can you prove it? Can you prove that there are more than the 7 parameters only? Can you prove that the hundreds theoretical results are not consistent with experimental data? Can you prove that my theory does not solve the basic unsolved problems within the SM? Can you prove that I did not calculate the physical constants from the initial conditions? Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion? Can you prove that I did not describe the reasons of the big bang or origin of the dark energy and dark matter? And what is very funny, my theory proves that there are not in existence the postulated particles such as the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. There are in existence in the Einstein spacetime the carriers of the not existing gravitons i.e. the non-rotating binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos with parallel spins i.e. their spin is equal to 2. But due to their internal structure, they can create the transverse waves only i.e. when they rotate, they behave as two entangled photons. Gravitational energy is emitted due to the flows in the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating carriers of the not existing gravitons. We can see also that the spin of the carriers of the not existing gravitons (spin=2) and the number of gluons (8) lead to the four-neutrino symmetry and to the two families of neutrinos only. The illusion of the existence of the third family of neutrinos follows from the fact that the neutrino ‘oscillations’ are not transformations of neutrinos but the exchanges of the free neutrinos for the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of. AlphaNumeric10-07-11, 03:56 PMAs all can see, I wrote: “….This means that there can be not in existence the ‘acceleration’”. This means that the ‘acceleration’ CAN BE in existence or CAN BE NOT. My theory proves that the ‘can be not’ is correct.Firstly the acceleration is the observed phenomena, that is what the Nobel Prize was for. Secondly your theory cannot prove anything. All your theory can do, at best, is be consistent with the data and give particular interpretations. Being consistent with the data doesn't prove you are right. Newton was consistent with data for 200 years, did that prove him right? No, it just meant that we couldn't observe things carefully enough to see his mistakes. Relativity, even if the neutrinos do move faster than light, was consistent with data for more than a century, does that prove it right? No, it just shows the model was very close to the truth and we couldn't see the error. Likewise, even if your theory was consistent it wouldn't prove anything. Your inability to grasp this important distinction between consistent with experiments and proving a model shows how bad your grasp of the scientific method is. But never was the Nobel Prize for such ‘discoveries’ i.e. for a discovery type maybe or maybe not.Discovery of the CMB (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation ). Observation of the neutrino (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Direct_detection). Discovery of positron (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positron#Experimental_clues_and_discovery). But a few examples.... Non-perturbative mathematics is very well understood for people who read my electronic book http://www.cosmology-particles.plAsserting it doesn't make it true. Most funny is the fact that my theory solves the all unsolved problems within the SM but people as you try to change the fruitless SM. Within the SM initial conditions we never will explain why neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c (BTW: maximum neutrino speed calculated within the Everlasting Theory is 1.000072c).I can't help but notice you didn't actually respond to what I said. I pointed out that no theoretical physicist thinks the SM is the last word in theoretical physics, it's not supposed to address everything. Can't you at least admit to making a strawman? Can you prove it? Can you prove that there are more than the 7 parameters only?String theory has none. Can you prove that the hundreds theoretical results are not consistent with experimental data? Can you prove that my theory does not solve the basic unsolved problems within the SM? Can you prove that I did not calculate the physical constants from the initial conditions? Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion? Can you prove that I did not describe the reasons of the big bang or origin of the dark energy and dark matter? Done (http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/measuring-coupling-strengths/). And what is very funny, my theory proves that there are not in existence the postulated particles such as the Higgs boson(s), sparticles, other –inos, gravitons, gravitational waves, and so on. So, it hypothesises. No amount of experiments can prove your model. Likewise your model cannot prove things about the universe, it can only offer models and explanations. Saying you prove something about the universe is completely false. No, you simply offer an hypothesis. ...deluded self advertising....Sylwester, no one gives a crap about you endlessly repeating your assertions. You've been doing it for years, decades even, and it's gotten you nowhere. Rather than wheel out a stock reply why can't you engage in discussion properly? If I wanted to read your yammerings I'd go to your website. Your tactics haven't worked, you've achieved nothing in the last 5+ years. Why don't you try being a little more rational and a little less deluded self advertising. Sylwester Kornowski10-08-11, 05:26 AMFirstly the acceleration is the observed phenomena, that is what the Nobel Prize was for. You do not understand that wrong initial conditions lead to wrong conclusions. Assume that, as it is in my theory, due to the decays of the entangled photons the brightness of the cosmic objects considerably increased about 5.7 billion years ago. Then, the Type Ia supernovae which are in distances greater than the 5.7 billion years, should be fainter than it follows from the redshift. Such phenomenon leads to ILLUSION that expansion of the Universe accelerates. I claim that the redshift greater than the 1 is the real phenomenon i.e. that the protuberances of the dark energy at the beginning of the big bang, accelerated for shot moment the protogalaxies to the speeds higher than the c. Moreover, this assumption is consistent with the Einstein relativity when we add the correct description of the origin of the gravitational interactions. There were the succeeding explosions of the smaller and smaller cosmic objects and the dominating gravitational fields had been ‘attached’ to the exploding objects. This means that the j+1 object had speed smaller but close to the c in relation to the j object. This leads to conclusion that the formula for the ‘relativistic’ redshift is wrong. This causes ALSO that the distant supernovae are fainter than they should be. We can see that the ILLUSION of the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe is because we neglected two very important phenomena. It is because TODAY only I know properties of the dark energy and the reason of the big bang. Once more: Wrong initial conditions lead to wrong conclusions. Secondly your theory cannot prove anything. All your theory can do, at best, is be consistent with the data and give particular interpretations. Being consistent with the data doesn't prove you are right. Very funny. So what proves, for example, that the GR is correct? You do not understand that there are the better and worse theories. The better theories describe more, are consistent with experimental data and contain less the parameters. This means that my theory is better than the SM. Newton was consistent with data for 200 years, did that prove him right? No, it just meant that we couldn't observe things carefully enough to see his mistakes. Relativity, even if the neutrinos do move faster than light, was consistent with data for more than a century, does that prove it right? No, it just shows the model was very close to the truth and we couldn't see the error. Likewise, even if your theory was consistent it wouldn't prove anything. My theory proves that both Newton and Einstein theories are correct. There are two spacetimes. Whole nature we can describe beginning from the Newtonian spacetime. I pointed out that no theoretical physicist thinks the SM is the last word in theoretical physics,…. It is obvious. Better theory is my theory. It describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from at least 3 times less the parameters. No amount of experiments can prove your model. Very funny. My theory shows that neutrinos are moving with speeds higher than the c and predictions are consistent with the MINOS, OPERA and SN 1987A data. The SM is inconsistent with experimental data concerning the neutrino speed. AlphaNumeric, you compromise yourself because you as a physicist should understand what in science is most important. AlphaNumeric10-08-11, 05:53 AMVery funny. So what proves, for example, that the GR is correct?Nothing and no good physicist would have ever claimed it is proven correct. You are making strawmen. You do not understand that there are the better and worse theories. The better theories describe more, are consistent with experimental data and contain less the parameters. This means that my theory is better than the SM.I do understand some models can be better. Relativity is better than Newton. Quantum electrodynamics is better than electromagnetism. They are more general and more accurate but that doesn't prove them. My theory proves that both Newton and Einstein theories are correct. There are two spacetimes. Whole nature we can describe beginning from the Newtonian spacetime.Then your theory is inconsistent because Newton and Einstein contradict one another. It is obvious. Better theory is my theory. It describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from at least 3 times less the parameters.You keep saying 'consistent with experimental data' but that data is based on the SM. I have explained it to you (http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/measuring-coupling-strengths/) multiple times. The \alpha_{S} values are computed using the SM. If you claim the SM is nonsense you need to explicitly compute \alpha_{S} from the data. You haven't done this, your claims are false. AlphaNumeric, you compromise yourself because you as a physicist should understand what in science is most important.I'm the one explaining to you your strawmen. You think people claim GR is proven, which isn't true. Seeing as this isn't what the original thread was about and, as of today I'm a moderator on these forums, I'll split your stuff off from this thread and kick it over into pseudo, where it belongs. AlphaNumeric10-08-11, 05:57 AMAll posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum. prometheus10-08-11, 06:04 AMAll posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum. Damn it! You beat me to it! :) AlphaNumeric10-08-11, 08:42 AMI suppose I could have sent it to the new 'Alternative theories' subforum. He's at least tried to make his claims coherent, compared to the likes of Pincho or mpc, which are firmly pseudo-science. Sylwester Kornowski10-08-11, 10:42 AMAll posts above this one were removed from a thread in the Physics subforum about the 2011 Physics Nobel Prize. Sylwester's work belongs in the pseudo forum. Now all can see how revengeful you are. Within my theory, I predicted and calculated that neutrinos should move with speeds higher than the c. The obtained theoretical results are consistent with all experimental data. Within the SM such calculations are impossible. All can see that when you have not scientific arguments, you make very bad things. It looks as communism in science. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. I will not discuss in this place of this Forum because my theory soon will be the mainstream theory. AlphaNumeric10-08-11, 12:36 PMNow all can see how revengeful you are.I could have just deleted the posts entirely but I didn't. I could have edited them to make you say "Wow AlphaNumeric, you've opened my eyes, I was wrong all along!" but I didn't. I could have slapped you with a warning because I don't like you but I didn't. Instead I moved the posts to their proper home and left all of them intact. Hardly 'revengeful'. You need to realise you don't scare people, you don't insight fear, you don't insight anything other than "Oh god he's still spouting that crap!". I pity your ignorance and self delusion, I'm not scared by it. It looks as communism in science.I know communism buggered up your country for decades but it isn't an insult, particularly when it's nothing to do with the issue at hand. You ought to be ashamed of yourself.I know acting honestly seems shameful to you but some of us are a little better than that. I will not discuss in this place of this Forum because my theory soon will be the mainstream theory.You were saying that 5 years ago and you've not made any advances since then. No journal has published your work, no professional research is working on it, no one has even read it all the way through (your errors become apparent early on). How is it going to be mainstream when practically no one in the mainstream community even knows you exist and no one at all in the mainstream community takes you seriously? Please, answer me that. Emil10-08-11, 12:47 PMWhy this thread is not in "Alternative Theories" subforum? Arioch10-08-11, 01:03 PMBecause it doesn't even count as a theory, it's just high-grade woo. Emil10-08-11, 01:18 PMBecause it doesn't even count as a theory, it's just high-grade woo. If you say, it should be. @Sylwester Kornowski, Hang on, buddy! Arioch10-08-11, 01:24 PM@Emil -- If you say, it should be. Why, because you like it? Sorry but it doesn't work that way. A theory must be parsimonious and it must make testable predictions and/or retrodictions in order to be falsifiable(there are other qualifiers of course, but these are the two biggies). This is neither of those and is therefore not a competing theory. Hell it's not even a hypothesis, it's merely an unsupported assertion. Emil10-08-11, 01:43 PM@Arioch, For me it is a theory like GR and much better than SR. But you are entitled to your opinion. Arioch10-08-11, 01:53 PM@Emil -- It's not my opinion, it's the only standard in science. If you can't make falsifiable predictions or retrodictions then it's not a theory, end of story. Emil10-08-11, 02:05 PMIt's not my opinion... What? I do not talk to you? Who convinced you and how , it is your job. it's the only standard in science. Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon? Arioch10-08-11, 02:12 PM@Emil -- You said, and I quote you directly here: @Arioch, For me it is a theory like GR and much better than SR. But you are entitled to your opinion. As I said, this is not my opinion, it's the only standard in science. Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon? Are you aware that these results are extremely controversial(which isn't bad in and of itself) and that they haven't been duplicated yet? Are you also aware that there are multiple explanations being proposed for the results that are perfectly concurrent with Relativity? No, apparently you weren't because you said this with the implication that it proves relativity wrong(of course, if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work). Emil10-08-11, 02:49 PM@Arioch You said, and I quote you directly here: It's not my opinion... As I said, What? I do not talk to you? who convinced you and how , it is your job. Are you aware that these results are extremely controversial(which isn't bad in and of itself) and that they haven't been duplicated yet? Are you also aware that there are multiple explanations being proposed for the results that are perfectly concurrent with Relativity? Can you prove that my ET does not lead to the speeds of neutrinos consistent with the data obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments and with the data concerning the supernova 1987A explosion? Notwithstanding these results is crack posting. No, apparently you weren't because you said this with the implication that it proves relativity wrong(of course, if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work). LOL...Can you show me how "if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work" ? Arioch10-08-11, 03:11 PM@Emil -- As I said, What? I do not talk to you? who convinced you and how , it is your job. Again, it's not my opinion it's the standard that every scientist uses when evaluating a hypothesis or theory. I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at here though. I'm not sure if you're using a translator and are having problems with the language or if you just aren't good at wording things in a manner which makes sense, but pretty much all I'm getting from you is gibberish. LOL...Can you show me how "if relativity were wrong then your cell phone wouldn't work" ? It's quite simple really, without the calculations and calibrations using relativity all of the communications satellites would crash or burn up in the atmosphere. Beyond that, without relativity none of the satellites would send any usable signals due to the time dilation experienced at relativistic speeds(which satellites travel at, albeit very low relativistic speeds). The technology we use every day confirm relativity, though we know from QED that relativity is incomplete. So it's not dead wrong the way that you imply merely not finished yet. Of course, I fully expect you to just dismiss this completely without even bothering to check up on it because that's what you woomeisters do. Emil10-08-11, 03:24 PM@Emil -- It's quite simple really, without the calculations and calibrations using relativity all of the communications satellites would crash or burn up in the atmosphere. Beyond that, without relativity none of the satellites would send any usable signals due to the time dilation experienced at relativistic speeds(which satellites travel at, albeit very low relativistic speeds). The technology we use every day confirm relativity, though we know from QED that relativity is incomplete. So it's not dead wrong the way that you imply merely not finished yet. Of course, I fully expect you to just dismiss this completely without even bothering to check up on it because that's what you woomeisters do. @Arioch My cell phone works well and without GPS. You have learned Einstain's theory and for 100 years you spamming the science.(How you developed it in 100 years?) Feature is the concern of a scientist and not the result. Any search in this field, you spam it. You know only simply reproduce Einstein's theory. So please don't spam. We know Einstein's theories. Arioch10-08-11, 03:30 PM@Emil -- Your cell phone might work just fine without gps, however the cell towers don't. No cell towers equals no cell phones, no relativity equals no cell towers, therefore no relativity equals no cell phones. And who's spamming anything, you're the one who brought up relativity, not me. Emil10-08-11, 03:43 PMno relativity equals no cell phones. SR is just the greatest scam in history. Arioch10-08-11, 03:52 PM@Emil -- Says you. Got anything to back that incredible bullshit up? Or am I to take it on faith? Emil10-08-11, 03:59 PM@Emil -- Says you. Got anything to back that incredible bullshit up? Says the neutron speed, but you are not able to understand. @Emil -- Got anything to back that incredible bullshit up? bullshit is to deny the evidence. Arioch10-08-11, 04:15 PM@Emil -- Says the neutron speed, but you are not able to understand. Wow, somebody can't read. I already stated my reasoning for not accepting that as evidence that relativity is wrong. Not only haven't the results of that experiment been replicated(meaning that we have no idea whether or not they're true yet) but there are several possible explanations for that result that are concurrent with the theory of relativity. bullshit is to deny the evidence. 1. It's not evidence yet, it hasn't been replicated. 2. I'm not denying anything, I'm the one who's not jumping on anything which looks like it might support my pet belief. I'm the one who's being rational and waiting until more is known to make a decision about this result. You're the one who's blindly accepting something just because you like it, and you might want to work on that flaw before it bites you in the ass one day. Emil10-08-11, 04:29 PM@Arioch, Are you going to stop trolling this thread? I told you I know SR and this is not the SR! Arioch10-08-11, 04:39 PM@Emil -- Then why did you even bring it up in the first place? And anyways, why should I trust you to know anything? All you've done so far is display a frightening level of ignorance about scientific procedure and...well...just about everything else too. Emil10-08-11, 04:44 PM@Emil -- Then why did you even bring it up in the first place? And anyways, why should I trust you to know anything? All you've done so far is display a frightening level of ignorance about scientific procedure and...well...just about everything else too. I reported you as troll. Arioch10-08-11, 04:51 PMSo now a troll is anyone who criticizes things you like? Damn, I must be an awful troll. However I must point out that I'm not trolling according to the standards of this site, so have fun wasting the time of the mods. AlexG10-08-11, 08:09 PMAre you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon? Are you aware that the neutrino and the neutron are two very different things? Dywyddyr10-08-11, 08:11 PMAre you aware that the neutrino and the neutron are two very different things? Bah! You science types! Next you'll be telling us chalk and cheese, or even shit and shinola are different things. AlphaNumeric10-08-11, 08:13 PMWhy this thread is not in "Alternative Theories" subforum? Because I didn't realise the subforum was already online when I moved it. Are you aware the speed of the neutron is higher that the speed of the photon?Are you aware the neutron and neutrino are not the same? SR is just the greatest scam in history.Other than it being incorporated into pretty much all of theoretical physics from the last 100 years, physics which has advanced our understanding of the universe and ability to predict its behaviour enormously. Both relativity and quantum field theory include special relativity and so every test of them is a test of special relativity. Are you going to stop trolling this thread? I told you I know SR and this is not the SR!No, you don't know SR. That was firmly established in the physics subforum earlier in the week. You are deluding yourself if you think you understand relativity. To say it is a scam is just flat out stupid. I know it might be hard for you to understand, given you don't understand SR, but some of us do understand it. Some of us took the time to work through it, to see how to go from its initial postulates to it's conclusions, it's quantitative predictions and how those can be tested. Some of us learnt the models which are built on top of special relativity, seeing how those too go from postulates to end conclusions and predictions. There's no conspiracy, anyone can go and buy a book on this stuff and learn it for themselves, see how it goes from start to end. There's no web of secrecy, no kick backs to academia for their silence, no supression of results. The very fact physicists have announced "Here's something which seems to contradict relativity?!" shows they are open to it being wrong. So please explain how it is a scam. And your "Go away, you're trolling" comments to people who ask you to back up your claims is itself trolling. Why is it you SR denying hacks always demand other people answer your questions and justify their claims but when someone asks you to answer a question and back up your assertions you're suddenly all defensive. I reply with lengthy posts to you, Chinglu, Magneto, Sylwester, Motor Daddy etc and yet get accused of being scared or running away, all the while you lot can't answer even simple direct questions. That is trolling and if you think no one notices you doing it then you're even more deluded than just thinking you 'know' special relativity. Emil10-08-11, 08:29 PM@AlphaNumeric, I understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics. You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function. You have some examples hallucinating. I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand. So once again this is not the SR. AlexG10-08-11, 08:31 PM@AlphaNumeric, I understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics. You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function. You have some examples hallucinating. I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand. So once again this is not the SR. We have now entered woo-woo land. Arguing with a crank is usless. Emil10-08-11, 08:38 PMWe have now entered woo-woo land. Arguing with a crank is usless. troll...http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR3tQegiYGBZVQV3dF8w16r-j6u-TIGSe6ClKQmrh0wXO-mxvyj AlexG10-08-11, 08:39 PMSelf-portrait? Did you look in the mirror when drawing it, or did you do it from memory? Sylwester Kornowski10-09-11, 02:50 AMString theory has none. You completely do not understand how physics acts. The nothing (i.e. the number of parameters is equal to zero) leads to nothing only. To calculate something within the string theory, there must appear parameters and other initial conditions, for example, some formulae which will show how nature acts. Can you derive, for example, the physical constants from zero/nothing? Can you see the mistake in your thinking? My theory is the theory containing least parameters. It describes more than other theories, for example, leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos is higher than the c, describes the origin of the physical constants, describes the cause of the big bang, and so on. Some mainstream theories are correct as, for example, the GR but some interpretations are incorrect what leads, for example, to the not existing acceleration of expansion of the Universe. And my theoretical results are consistent with experimental and observational data. For example, my electroweak theory leads to better results than the QED. My theory and the experimental data concerning the neutrino speed show that about 90% of the QCD and the electroweak theory we must reject. You know, sometimes the way to victory is not a bed of roses. Sometimes it lasts decades. But my victory is coming because the last data obtained in the OPERA and MINOS experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A are consistent only with my theory within the same model i.e. within the atom-like structure of baryons. Nothing and no good physicist would have ever claimed it is proven correct. I can claim that the GR is correct (some interpretations are incorrect) because I described origin of the postulates applied in this theory. I calculated the gravitational constant and described internal structure of the particles with the spin equal to 2 which are responsible for the gravitational interactions. Within the mainstream theories, we cannot prove that the GR is correct but my theory is the more fundamental theory so it is possible. Relativity is better than Newton. Quantum electrodynamics is better than electromagnetism. They are more general and more accurate but that doesn't prove them. This is correct only partially. The neutrino speed higher than the c is consistent with the Newtonian theory. My theory shows that the Newtonian spacetime composed of the tachyons is more fundamental than the Einstein spacetime composed of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos (they are the carriers of photons and gluons; their spin is 1) and the binary systems of binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the neutrino quadruples which carry the gravitational interactions (their spin is 2). I derived the Einstein spacetime and the postulates applied in the GR from the properties of the Newtonian spacetime. I could have just deleted the posts entirely but I didn't. I could have edited them to make you say "Wow AlphaNumeric, you've opened my eyes, I was wrong all along!" but I didn't. I could have slapped you with a warning because I don't like you but I didn't. At first, you moved my posts to ‘Pseudoscience’. It looked as transportation to Siberia in the Soviet Union. Why at once not an execution? You know, you are very good in such actions. I try to teach you and others the good physics, i.e. physics which leads to the neutrino speed higher than the c and which leads to the new cosmology showing that the observed ‘acceleration’ of the expansion of the Universe is only the illusion which follows from the wrong interpretation within the correct GR. We also do not take into account that the entangled photons produced at the beginning of the big bang decayed due to the weak interactions of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the carriers of the photons and gluons. Such decays caused that brightness of the Universe increased 5.7 billion years ago. You write the untrue about my theory because you read only a few fragments. It is very dishonest. You behave as my enemy without any reason. But my theory will win. Soon. The hundreds theoretical results derived from the 7 parameters only and consistent with experimental data are not a chance. You will be ashamed of writing the nonsense in your posts. So once more: More thorny way leads to greater triumph. AlphaNumeric10-09-11, 05:06 AMI understand more than you SR. You know just something mathematics.The cry of the crank, "You just know the maths, I know the physics!". Ever looked in a relativity textbook, a paper published in it, the original work of Einstein or Hilbert? It's very mathematical. The level of mathematics I've posted on this forum is basic. I don't think I've ever actually gone to the edges of my abilities here, the SR related stuff is first year material. Someone need only look in a text book on relativity to see I'm not being any more mathematical than anyone else. You're too used to reading pop science articles where they remove all the mathematics. It gives you a false impression 'real' relativity is done without the maths. You should actually look at how relativity is done. Would you like me to cite some examples for you? You have no idea to establish conditions in which SR function. You have some examples hallucinating.And yet I explained it to you repeatedly over in the recent thread you and MD were being thick in. I proved this every time but you are too arrogant to understand. So I'm arrogant for having a demonstrable understanding of special relativity, formal education in it and published research in models which incorporate it, while you're not arrogant for making claims you can't back up, having no experience with SR and being demonstrable wrong in multiple areas of it? Wow are you ever detached from reality. AlphaNumeric10-09-11, 05:15 AMYou completely do not understand how physics acts. The nothing (i.e. the number of parameters is equal to zero) leads to nothing only.That's an assertion, not a justified statement of truth. To calculate something within the string theory, there must appear parameters and other initial conditions, for example, some formulae which will show how nature acts.Sylwester, you don't know any string theory and you're talking to someone with a doctorate in it. It would be wise not to make assertive statements you have no knowledge on. Can you derive, for example, the physical constants from zero/nothing? Can you see the mistake in your thinking?Every quantity has an equation of motion associated to it. For example, the gravitational coupling 'constant' is actually associated to a moduli field. This moduli field has a potential and is dynamical. Depending on the configuration of space-time the 'constant' takes different values. Thus the value of the coupling constant is determined by the structure of space-time. The structure of space-time is also written in terms of a set of moduli fields which feel a potential which is defined by the mathematical structure of string dynamics. The structure of space-time can thus vary and will end up in a minimum of this potential. There are multiple minima but the dualities of string theory mean many of them are physical equivalent or unstable to non-perturbative effects. The extreme amount of symmetries in string theory means many types of rigid structures exist, which do not allow for arbitrary values of coupling constant, Instead they must be found by dynamical methods. It is all outlined in Polchinski's book 'String theory'. My theory is the theory containing least parameters. It describes more than other theories, for example, leads to conclusion that speed of neutrinos is higher than the c, describes the origin of the physical constants, describes the cause of the big bang, and so on. Sylwester, why do you bother repeating yourself? I've already debunked your claim to predict the coupling constants from the SM. You have never retorted that. As such you repeating that claim to me shows that you're intellectually dishonest and you're a little daft. Why would I believe your claim when I know I have retorted it? My theory and the experimental data concerning the neutrino speed show that about 90% of the QCD and the electroweak theory we must reject.Then we must reject the values of the coupling constants obtained by using QED, QCD and EW theories. Thus your claim to predict the coupling constants is false. At first, you moved my posts to ‘Pseudoscience’. It looked as transportation to Siberia in the Soviet Union. Why at once not an execution? You know, you are very good in such actions. If you don't like it here, leave. I try to teach you and others the good physics, You try to convince people by repeated assertions. You aren't interested in a dialogue. You write the untrue about my theory because you read only a few fragments. It is very dishonest. You behave as my enemy without any reason.I don't need to read all of it to see a fundamental flaw. There is nothing you can say which would alter the relevance of what I've said. But my theory will win. Soon. The hundreds theoretical results derived from the 7 parameters only and consistent with experimental data are not a chance. You will be ashamed of writing the nonsense in your posts.It's always 'soon'. Has been for what, 25 years now? Sylwester Kornowski10-09-11, 06:15 AMAlphaNumeric, your answers have no sense. You write and write nonsense but they will not solve the big number of the unsolved basic problems. You still try to show that methods applied in the SM are correct whereas my non-perturbative, very simple and fruitful theory is incorrect because my methods differ from the applied in the SM. First of all the applied methods must be EFFECTIVE. The methods applied in the SM are effective only partially. To solve all problems we need new method. I showed how such method looks and acts. For example, the gluons transform into photons outside the strong fields, I described the real internal structure of quarks, and so on. The new method shows that nature is very simple if we apply correct initial conditions. How physicist as you cannot understand such obvious truth. You try to be right but you are not. Below are the last questions to you. You ignore them because you are unable to write that I am right. I repeat myself because you repeat yourself. You can do it because you are the moderator. You still write as follows: “the 25 years without a success, you read all whereas I nothing, you are with a doctorate whereas I not”, and so on. Can you see that it looks as paranoia? Can you within the SM calculate the physical constants? Can you within the SM calculate the neutrino speeds higher than the c? Are they consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A within one coherent model? Can you calculate within the SM the masses of the all leptons and quarks? Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies? Can you within the SM and GR describe origin of the big number of the applied postulates? No. No. No. No. No. I did it within the Everlasting Theory applying 7 parameters only. Calculated values are as follows (system SI): G: 6.6740007*10^-11 Planck constant/2*pi: 1.054571548*10^-34 c: 299,792,458 e: 1.60217642*10^-19 Fine-structure constant for low energies: 1/137.036001 Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c. Masses: see the tables. Alpha_strong for very high energies: 0.1139 So which theory is better? The answer is such simple! Once more: Better theory must be more fruitful and my theory is more fruitful. Arrivederci Sylwester Kornowski10-09-11, 10:43 AMAlphaNumeric, I decided to teach you one more important thing. You many times wrote that I apply the same definitions as in the QCD. You have written that I apply different methods and parameters than these within the QCD and I unexpectedly obtain the same or similar results. You many times wrote that it is impossible, that I should obtain different results and that it is the proof that my theory is incorrect. At first, I explain this duality comparing the QED with my electroweak theory. There is the Einstein spacetime. When we neglect the internal structure of this spacetime, then the self-interaction we can describe only via the electromagnetic interactions. It is in the QED. This theory is the perturbative theory and there are many the diagrams. In my theory, I take into account the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare electron. This means that such description should look differently because there appear the weak interactions – both the Einstein spacetime and electron consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such theory is non-perturbative and very simple. Nature can realize the both descriptions but it is obvious that probability of realization of the first or second description is different. So once more: the both descriptions are EQUIVALENT. We apply the same definitions, we apply different methods but we obtain the same results. Similarly is for the QCD. In the QCD, we reject the higher energies, then we apply the perturbative theory and renormalization. In my QCD, I take into account the atom-like structure of baryons and the internal structure of the strong and weak fields. Then, there arise MOSTLY the core-anticore pairs. This causes that my theory is non-perturbative and I should obtain better or the same results. The both methods are equivalent only partially because the calculations when the alpha_strong is greater than 1 are very difficult. This means that calculations of the mass of the up and down quarks within the perturbative QCD are very difficult and today almost impossible. Recapitulation Both descriptions, i.e. the perturbative and non-perturbative, are equivalent or almost equivalent. Nature mostly realizes the non-perturbative description because it is simpler. This causes that the Everlasting Theory can explain more in simply way and there are solved the problems unsolved within the QCD. My theory is more fundamental than the SM because I take into account the internal structure of the fields and bare particles. Believe10-09-11, 10:59 AMThe two biggest wrong conclusions within the mainstream theories caused by the wrong initial conditions are as follows: 1. That the Universe quite unexpectedly can accelerate its expansion. 2. That neutrinos, which carry the mass, cannot move with speeds higher than the massless photons and gluons i.e. than the c. The correct conclusions are as follows: 1. The dark energy is the a little compressed gas composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (they are moving with the speed c) i.e. the little compressed Einstein spacetime. The compression was due to the collapse of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang after the era of inflation. Such expansion is smooth whereas the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe is due to the neglected phenomena. A quite unexpected acceleration is impossible. 2. The Special Relativity concerns the objects composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not the neutrinos. When relativistic speed is equal to the c then spin speeds are equal to zero. Since there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin then there are the tremendous inflows of the binary systems of neutrinos, i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components, into the relativistic object. We can say that there is collapse of the Einstein spacetime. This causes that mass of such relativistic object should be infinite. Moreover, the electromagnetism is directly associated with the Einstein spacetime whereas the gravity only indirectly. Due to the internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos, they can produce the transverse waves only, i.e. in the Einstein spacetime the gravitational waves and gravitons cannot appear. Gravity is directly associated with the Newtonian spacetime (see the ET – there are the two spacetimes) whereas the gravitational constant G follows from the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Newtonian spacetime. Math or it didn't happen. AlphaNumeric10-09-11, 11:13 AMAlphaNumeric, your answers have no sense. You write and write nonsense but they will not solve the big number of the unsolved basic problems. Should I add the ability to tell the future to the list of your many supposed abilities? You still try to show that methods applied in the SM are correct whereas my non-perturbative, very simple and fruitful theory is incorrect because my methods differ from the applied in the SM. I don't disagree with your claims because they aren't the same as the SM, I disagree with your claims because they lack justification, lack predictive ability, lack details and in some cases clearly contradict reality. The methods applied in the SM are effective only partially. No one claims the SM is an answer to all of theoretical physics. How many times do you plan to repeat that straw man? To solve all problems we need new method. I showed how such method looks and acts. For example, the gluons transform into photons outside the strong fields, Then you've just claimed charge conservation does not exist for the strong force. Is that what you're claiming? How physicist as you cannot understand such obvious truth. You try to be right but you are not.Project much? You ignore them because you are unable to write that I am right. Why is it cranks say I avoid replying when I reply to their posts line by line and they skip over entire posts by me? still write as follows: “the 25 years without a success, you read all whereas I nothing, you are with a doctorate whereas I not”, and so on. Can you see that it looks as paranoia? Paranoia? How is that paranoia? You're the one claiming there's a communism-like conspiracy in physics. I'm just pointing out you've gotten nowhere in a quarter of a century. 1. Can you within the SM calculate the physical constants? 2. Can you within the SM calculate the neutrino speeds higher than the c? Are they consistent with the MINOS and OPERA experiments and the data concerning the supernova SN 1987A within one coherent model? 3. Can you calculate within the SM the masses of the all leptons and quarks? 4. Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies? 5. Can you within the SM and GR describe origin of the big number of the applied postulates? No. No. No. No. No.1. No, but that doesn't mean 'beyond the SM' theories won't be able to. 2. The experiments from OPERA are not necessarily consistent with neutrinos moving faster than light. Other neutrino experiments are dealt with by the SM, so the answer is a qualified yes. 3. No. 4. Yes, it's one of the major results of QCD and was awarded the Nobel Prize. This is where you show your dishonesty. You know asymptotic freedom has been predicted by QCD, you and I have discussed it many times. You know the value the SM predicts, you've asked myself and Rpenner about it in the past. So the fact you say the SM can't answer that is a flat out lie. There's no other word for it, you have lied. You're saying 'no' because you disagree with the values so it boils down to "The SM doesn't predict as I do therefore the SM is wrong.". Look up circular logic. 5. Models cannot explain their own postulates. Your model cannot explain its postulates. Look up circular logic again. I did it within the Everlasting Theory applying 7 parameters only. Calculated values are as follows (system SI): G: 6.6740007*10^-11 Planck constant/2*pi: 1.054571548*10^-34 c: 299,792,458 e: 1.60217642*10^-19 Fine-structure constant for low energies: 1/137.036001 Neutrino speed depends on lifetime of particles which decay due to the weak interactions. The calculated neutrino speed for the MINOS experiment is 1.000051(21)c. The maximum neutrino speed is 1.000072c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams for the OPERA experiment is 59.3 ns whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000172(71)c i.e. maximum neutrino speed is 1.0000243c. The calculated time-distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photon beams, observed on the Earth, for the supernova SN 1987A is 3 hours whereas the neutrino speed is 1.0000000014(6)c. Masses: see the tables. Alpha_strong for very high energies: 0.1139Most of those quantities are calculated using the SM. I've been over this (http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/03/measuring-coupling-strengths/) with you before. The fine structure constant is measured by QED scattering processes. Change QED and you change the equations, which change the value of \alpha, which makes your conclusions inconsistent. Likewise, Planck's constant is measured using things like a Josephson gate, which is modelled using quantum field theory. Change quantum field theory, you change the equations, which changes the inferred value. Your predictions are just numbers. It's easy to fit a sequence of 5 to 10 values to some simple curve. A model which replaces the SM needs to do more than that though. You and I have been crossing one another's paths for long enough for me to have seen some of the development of your claims. When we first met you were convinced asymptotic freedom and deconfinement were the same. It took me a long time and a great many posts to get you to understand the difference. I was the one who get you to realise a viable model should include running couplings and scattering cross sections. Up until that point you'd only been doing numerology with masses and charges. Even now your document doesn't actually compute differential cross sections, you seem to be unable to do any algebra powerful enough to involve general functions. Hence why your claims about understanding non-perturbative stuff is laughable. If I were to give you a non-perturbative dynamical problem would you solve it for me, so we can all see your capabilities directly? lphaNumeric, I decided to teach you one more important thing. You many times wrote that I apply the same definitions as in the QCD. You have written that I apply different methods and parameters than these within the QCD and I unexpectedly obtain the same or similar results. You many times wrote that it is impossible, that I should obtain different results and that it is the proof that my theory is incorrect. At first, I explain this duality comparing the QED with my electroweak theory. There is the Einstein spacetime. When we neglect the internal structure of this spacetime, then the self-interaction we can describe only via the electromagnetic interactions. It is in the QED. This theory is the perturbative theory and there are many the diagrams. In my theory, I take into account the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare electron. This means that such description should look differently because there appear the weak interactions – both the Einstein spacetime and electron consist of the binary systems of neutrinos. Such theory is non-perturbative and very simple. Nature can realize the both descriptions but it is obvious that probability of realization of the first or second description is different. So once more: the both descriptions are EQUIVALENT. We apply the same definitions, we apply different methods but we obtain the same results. Similarly is for the QCD. In the QCD, we reject the higher energies, then we apply the perturbative theory and renormalization. In my QCD, I take into account the atom-like structure of baryons and the internal structure of the strong and weak fields. Then, there arise MOSTLY the core-anticore pairs. This causes that my theory is non-perturbative and I should obtain better or the same results. The both methods are equivalent only partially because the calculations when the alpha_strong is greater than 1 are very difficult. This means that calculations of the mass of the up and down quarks within the perturbative QCD are very difficult and today almost impossible.You have utterly failed to grasp the problem I have outlined with your claims. Try to understand it again. Sylwester Kornowski10-09-11, 11:15 AMMath or it didn't happen. See the calculations on my website http://www.cosmology-particles.pl There are the 120 pages A4, 241 formulae, tens of tables and figures. I can explain some problem in details but you should specify it. Sylwester Kornowski10-09-11, 12:40 PMI don't disagree with your claims because they aren't the same as the SM, I disagree with your claims because they lack justification, lack predictive ability, lack details and in some cases clearly contradict reality. Do you indeed think that readers do not see the ble, ble, ble…? I wrote many times that there should be the examples. There is nothing. Then you've just claimed charge conservation does not exist for the strong force. You even do not know what you are reading. There is the atom-like structure of baryons. The strong field is associated with the torus in the core of baryons. The core consists of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. the carriers of gluons and photons. Photons appear outside the strong field when the carriers cross the sphere which has radius 2.9 fm. The same concerns the quark-antiquark pairs which also consist of the carriers. There is not in existence a confinement of quarks and gluons. They just transform into the photons or photon loops outside the strong field. The torus is the stable object and its spin and charge depends on its internal structure. There is obligatory the spin and charge conservation. For the strong interactions are responsible the gluon loops which arise inside the torus (inside quarks is torus also) and which have the INTERNAL HELICITY. Range of the strong interactions is equal to the circumference of the loops i.e. for baryons is 2.9 fm. We can see that due to the properties of the emitted gluon loops the strong field has internal helicity. The binary systems of neutrinos also have internal helicities. This leads to conclusion that there are 8 different gluons. The Einstein spacetime outside the strong field has not internal helicity so there is 1 photon i.e. the left- and right-handed photons (2) behaves the same so there is one type of photons. Baryons, mesons, gluon loops, quarks, sham quarks consist of the gluons i.e. the almost point particles (the Feynman partons). Conclusion There is not in existence a confinement of quarks and gluons. Outside the strong field they transform into the photons. But the quarks arise as the quark-antiquark pairs so there is the charge conservation. The experiments from OPERA are not necessarily consistent with neutrinos moving faster than light. Very funny. This is where you show your dishonesty. You know asymptotic freedom has been predicted by QCD, you and I have discussed it many times. You know the value the SM predicts, you've asked myself and Rpenner about it in the past. So the fact you say the SM can't answer that is a flat out lie I never claimed that there is an asymptotic freedom because there is not in existence a confinement. See above explanation. I always claim that there is asymptotic package of the very stable cores of the baryons. Asymptotic freedom leads to alpha_strong = 0. For this value, there was the Nobel Prize. I claim that there is not the zero but 0.1139. Models cannot explain their own postulates. Your model cannot explain its postulates. Look up circular logic again. You are right. This means that my model is better. I tried to tell you this obvious truth but you assume that others cannot think correctly. Most of those quantities are calculated using the SM. Most? You are joking. Origin of physical constants, neutrino speed higher than the c, mass of electron and muon or masses of quarks? Your predictions are just numbers. Very funny. Do you understand difference between numbers and physical values? You are liar because it is obvious truth. You write such nonsense without any example because you know that it is obvious untruth. Even now your document doesn't actually compute differential cross sections, you seem to be unable to do any algebra powerful enough to involve general functions. This is not true. For example, there is the cross section for the W boson as function of energy collision. It is very easy to calculate the differential cross section. Hence why your claims about understanding non-perturbative stuff is laughable. If I were to give you a non-perturbative dynamical problem would you solve it for me, so we can all see your capabilities directly? Whole my theory is the non-perturbative theory because the nature is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions. Nature does not need very complicated math because nature is much wiser than you are. I think that I am better physicist and mathematician than you are because nature behaves according to my theory. BTW: infinity + infinity = infinity – has it a sense? Can we write zero*infinity = 1 in different way? You know, you are the best mathematician. You have utterly failed to grasp the problem I have outlined with your claims. Try to understand it again. As usual, you write as above when you do not now answer. Very funny. Where are your scientific arguments? AlphaNumeric10-09-11, 01:23 PMYou even do not know what you are reading. Gluons are charged under the strong force. Photons are not. If one converts into the other charge has been changed. Thus no charge conservation in the strong force. The problem you have is I do know what I'm talking about. Very funny.I'm sorry you don't keep up with the latest physics research but there's already papers out which demonstrate the inconsistency of viewing the neutrinos are moving faster than light compared with other parts of the experiment. The experiment saw a large amount of neutrinos with more than 15GeV of energy. Such neutrinos would burn off their energy via electron/positron production before they make it to the detector if they are moving faster than light, much like electrons moving through water faster than light burn off energy via Cherenkov radiation. The observations are not consistent with faster than light neutrinos. Don't blame others for your ignorance. I never claimed that there is an asymptotic freedom because there is not in existence a confinement. See above explanation. I always claim that there is asymptotic package of the very stable cores of the baryons. Asymptotic freedom leads to alpha_strong = 0. For this value, there was the Nobel Prize. I claim that there is not the zero but 0.1139.You said, and I quote, "Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?" The SM can calculate that. It makes a prediction. You know it makes that prediction. You know the values it predicts for TeV scale processes. So your claim the answer is 'no' is a lie. Yes, it might predict something different from you but that isn't what you said. Saying claiming the SM can't predict it because the prediction doesn't agree with you is entirely circular. If I said your theory can't possibly be right because it doesn't agree with the SM then you'd complain about it, saying I was being circular with my logic. You're doing precisely that. You're so blinded by your absolute certainty you're right (hence your name for your model, the 'everlasting theory') that you don't see how circular your reasoning is. You are right. This means that my model is better. I tried to tell you this obvious truth but you assume that others cannot think correctly.If neither theory can explain its postulates why is yours better? Most? You are joking. Origin of physical constants, neutrino speed higher than the c, mass of electron and muon or masses of quarks?Neutrino velocities and their relationship to c and the running of coupling constants it can predict. Very funny. Do you understand difference between numbers and physical values? You are liar because it is obvious truth. You write such nonsense without any example because you know that it is obvious untruth.Thanks for cutting off the sentence which followed. It's funny you call me a liar while pulling sentences out of their explanations and context. My point, which I've discussed with you before, is that your predictions always end up reducing to curve fitting. You don't produce functions, like differential cross sections. It's easy to curve fit, there's a ton of simple methods which will do all of that for you. The problem is coming up with a single framework which not only produces specific values but also general functions which work for any configuration. Look up differential cross section expressions in QFT, they are functions of general incoming and outgoing momenta. I've yet to see you produce anything like that. I'm not even sure you can do any calculus, I've never seen you do any. This is not true. For example, there is the cross section for the W boson as function of energy collision. It is very easy to calculate the differential cross section.Firstly, you don't talk about cross sections for particles, you talk about cross sections for scattering processes, where you say what goes in and what comes out. If you don't even know what a cross section is I doubt you've calculated one properly. Secondly, cross sections depend on more than just energy, that's just a part of the general mometa which are involved. Thirdly, let's see you calculate a differential cross section. Whole my theory is the non-perturbative theory because the nature is very simple when we start from correct initial conditions.You seriously think that's an argument? I could just as easily say QFT is right because nature is simple. And? You keep using Nature as your reasoning, not your models. You are implicitly assuming your model is absolutely true so if nature works then your model does. You have yet to demonstrate the connection and even then you can never prove you are right, only demonstrate you are not wrong. Nature does not need very complicated math because nature is much wiser than you are. I think that I am better physicist and mathematician than you are because nature behaves according to my theory. BTW: infinity + infinity = infinity – has it a sense? Can we write zero*infinity = 1 in different way? You know, you are the best mathematician. Excellent strawman You obviously haven't learnt any quantum field theory (despite claiming on PhysOrg you have) because if you had then you'd know what renormalisation is about and why it isn't as you've just represented it. Yet another strawman. If you're having to resort to misrepresenting mainstream science then it demonstrates you're aware you're unable to provide a justified argument. As usual, you write as above when you do not now answer. Very funny. Where are your scientific arguments?I've provided an explanation why your claims are not correct. Your responses have illustrated you didn't understand it and that you're dishonest. Sylwester Kornowski10-10-11, 05:46 AMAlphaNumeric, all write that to solve the unsolved problems in the SM we need good non-perturbative theory. Then, for example, we can calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks. I formulated such fruitful non-perturbative theory and there are the conclusions that many assumptions in the perturbative QCD are incorrect. This causes that sometime within the perturbative theories we obtain wrong results or we cannot calculate something or there are the phenomena beyond such theories as, for example, the neutrino speed > c. For example, an unsolved problem is the Yang-Mills existence and mass gap problem. There is even offered a prize of US$1,000,000. My non-perturbative theory leads to the internal structure of the gluon field and shows that there is the mass gap > 0 because the gluons (i.e. the rotational energies) ARE CARRIED BY THE BINARY SYSTEMS OF NEUTRINOS WHICH HAVE POSITIVE MASS. My non-perturbative theory leads also to conclusion that there is the lower limit for mass of the glueballs. You are very impulsive man so you mostly do not understand my words. I ask you for the attentive reading of my posts. It will be better for you. Gluons are charged under the strong force. Photons are not. If one converts into the other charge has been changed. Thus no charge conservation in the strong force. You did not read my theory. Gluons and photons are the rotational energies (i.e. the pure energies; mass equal to zero) so there is not difference. Gluons and photons have different properties due to the internal structure of their carriers (i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos) and the different properties of the strong and electromagnetic fields and the Einstein spacetime. Gluons are in existence only in the strong field whereas the photons are in existence only in the Einstein spacetime or the electroweak field. The carriers of the gluons and photons have the same internal structure but they behave differently in the strong and electromagnetic fields. It is since only strong field has internal helicity due to the internal helicity of the gluon loops produced in the charged torus in the core of baryons. This torus has internal helicity also. Range of the strong field is equal to 2.9 fm because such is the circumference of the gluon loops. This means that we must neglect the internal helicity of the carriers outside the strong field. This is the reason why the gluons ‘transform’ into photons but there STILL ARE THE CARRIERS OF THE GLUONS AND PHOTONS i.e. their internal structure is still the same. You can see that inside the carriers of gluons are the two weak charges only whereas they INTERACT STRONGLY DUE TO THE INTERNAL HELICITIES OF THE NEUTRINOS AND THE HELICITY OF THE GLUONS AS A WHOLE. The observations are not consistent with faster than light neutrinos. My Everlasting Theory (more precisely, the new electroweak theory which leads to better results than the QED) shows that the speeds of neutrinos interacting with nucleons and appearing in the weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons are as follows c < neutrino-speed < 1.000072c. I claim that the future experiments also will show that it is true. If not, then I will write that my theory is incorrect. "Can you within the SM calculate the asymptotic value for the alpha-strong for the very high energies?" The SM can calculate that. It makes a prediction. You know it makes that prediction. You know the values it predicts for TeV scale processes. So your claim the answer is 'no' is a lie. Yes, it might predict something different from you but that isn't what you said. AlphaNumeric, indeed discussion with you is very difficult. I know that the SM makes a prediction. But I claimed that the SM predictions for the high energies presented in 2004 (see the Nobel Prize) are inconsistent with my predictions. The winners of the Nobel Prize claimed that there is the asymptotic freedom i.e. there is the GAS-like plasma and the alpha_strong = 0. I claim that there is the LIQUID-like plasma and alpha_strong = 0.1139. What is the TODAY SM prediction for energy 14 TeV? You know, we will compare the results when there appear new LHC data. If neither theory can explain its postulates why is yours better? It is boring. I wrote it many times. Better theory describes more, is consistent with experimental data and begins from less parameters. There are the function: alpha_strong = f(energy) and cross-section = f(energy). It is VERY easy to calculate the differential cross section! But it is not necessary to understand my non-perturbative theory. Due you want my theory was longer than the 120 pages A4? You also still compare my math with the applied in the QCD. My theory is the non-perturbative theory whereas the QCD is the perturbative one. These theories MUST differ completely because I take into account the internal structure of the fields and bare particles whereas the QCD practically can say nothing about the structures. In the rest of your post are only the invectives. And now I will teach you one more good thing. In my theory, there is paragraph titled ‘New interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle’. From it follows that the renewable particles such as electrons, sham quarks, muons appear in appropriate fields as the gluon or photon loops with spin equal to 1 and then transform into the gluon or photon particle-antiparticle pairs and then there is their collapse to gluon or photon balls. Then they disappear in one place of field and appear in another one, and so on. It looks as follows: gluon or photon loop-->torus-->ball, next loop-->torus-->ball, and so on. My non-perturbative theory is associated with the loop and torus and partially with the ball whereas the perturbative theories are associated with the balls. Lifetime of the torus is 2*pi*r/c whereas lifetime of the ball stadium is r/c. This means that the non-perturbative stadium lasts 2*pi longer than the perturbative stadium. Can you now understand why the QED and my electroweak theory are the equivalent theories? Can you now understand why the QCD and my Everlasting Theory are the equivalent theories? But, of course, my theory is much better because of the three conditions which distinguish the better theories from the worse theories. Sylwester Kornowski10-21-11, 09:22 AMThe extreme amount of symmetries in string theory means many types of rigid structures exist, which do not allow for arbitrary values of coupling constant, Instead they must be found by dynamical methods. This is true only partially for high energies but even for the high energies, there arise mostly the same stable structures. This causes that for higher and higher energies the ratio of the number of pions and kaons to the number of the other particles increases. This effect was not expected. This effect shows that we can describe the high-energy collisions within a non-perturbative theory. M-theory in the Everlasting Theory M-theory: My Everlasting Theory (the ET) is some extension of the M-theory. Within the non-perturbative ET, I described internal structure and behaviour of all closed and open loops/strings. There are the bosonic and fermion loops/strings. There is something beyond the M-theory i.e. the Titius-Bode law for the strong and strong gravitational interactions. Fundamental bosonic string theory: All particles consist of the binary systems of my closed strings. The phase space of such systems contains 11 elements but we can reduce it to 10 elements because the distance between the closed strings follows from the internal structure of the closed string. The distance is 2π times greater than the thickness of the string. We can see that the binary system of closed strings (spin=1) and the quadruple of the closed strings (spin=2) are the bosons so the fundamental string theory is not the superstring theory. But it consists of the fermions. There arise at once the binary systems because the internal helicity of the created systems must be equal to zero. Then, the quantum fluctuations in the fundamental spacetime are reduced to minimum. The superstring theories, i.e. theories which describe simultaneously the fermions and bosons appear on higher level of nature. I showed how to derive the superstring theories from the fundamental string theory i.e. from the Bosonic String Theory. Due to the phase transitions, there appear the three superstring theories. There are the three stable tori/fermions carrying the half-integral spin i.e. the torus of neutrinos, the torus in the core of baryons and the torus before the ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation (they are the k-‘dimensional’ tori in the M-theory). The tori look as closed fermion strings. Inside them, there arise the bosonic loops. We can see that there appears the supersymmetry i.e. the fermion-boson symmetry. The bosonic loops inside the neutrinos and the cosmic loops cannot be open whereas the large loops produced inside the torus in the core of baryons can be closed or open. The tori of neutrinos and the cosmic object cannot be open whereas the electric charges/tori come open in the annihilations of the pairs. Type I superstring theory is the theory of baryons (typical size is about 10^-15 m) and electrons (~10^-13 m). Type IIA superstring theory is the theory of neutrinos (typical size is about 10^-35 m). Type IIB superstring theory is the theory of the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation (typical size is about 10^24 m and more due to the expansion). T-duality: We can see that in approximation the inverse of the geometric mean of the typical sizes for the Type I and IIA superstring theories is equal to the typical size for the Type IIB superstring theory. Moreover, the transition from the Type IIB superstring theory to the Type IIA superstring theory was the cause of the ‘soft’ big bang. Heterotic E(8)×E(8) theory: The ground state of the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. There are the 4 different binary systems. They are the carriers of the photons and gluons. There is one type of the two photons i.e. the left- and right-handed and 8 types of gluons. Due to the four-neutrino symmetry, the next greater object than the 8 different gluons should contain 8 • 8 = 64 gluons. This means that the heterotic E8×E8 theory follows from the fundamental bosonic string theory and the Type I superstring theory. Heterotic SO(32) theory: There are the 4 different carriers of the photons and gluons. This means that due to the four-neutrino symmetry, the next greater object than the 4 different carriers should contain 4 • 4 = 16 binary systems. But there are the two different states of each baryon so we must multiply this number by 2. Then we obtain the 32 binary systems. We can see that the heterotic SO(32) theory follows also from the fundamental bosonic string theory and the Type I superstring theory. Gravity: In the gravitational fields, there are the non-rotating quadruples of the neutrinos. Their spin is 2 and they are the carriers of the gravitational energy/mass. There is some analogy between the four different neutrinos, which lead to the quadruples, and the four different binary systems of neutrinos in the heterotic theories. This means that the gravity should look similarly as the heterotic theories in the very low-energy limit. S-duality: The ET shows that the Type I superstring theory describes the weak and strong interactions whereas the heterotic SO(32) theory the strong interactions via the gluons. This means that there are in existence similar string theories which vary due to the values of the coupling constants. The M-theory contains the fundamental bosonic string theory plus the three superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory and plus the two heterotic theories which follow from the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric10-21-11, 01:59 PMThanks for showing you have no qualms about just making up nonsense about things you have no understanding of. It illustrates your dishonesty very easily. My PhD was in dualities, I know about T S and U dualities. You are flat out wrong about that, your need to hear yourself talk is your undoing. Sylwester Kornowski10-21-11, 03:04 PMThanks for showing you have no qualms about just making up nonsense about things you have no understanding of. It illustrates your dishonesty very easily. My PhD was in dualities, I know about T S and U dualities. You are flat out wrong about that, your need to hear yourself talk is your undoing. You know, I showed that the M-theory is the fundamental part of the Everlasting Theory. This causes that the M-theory is NOW FRUITFUL. Why in your posts are the invectives only? Are you personal? Lack of scientific arguments? If you are such good then you can write why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings? Can you? You know, just the PHYSICAL MEANING. You know PhD, if you will not explain it, I will do it. AlphaNumeric10-24-11, 02:09 AMI showed that the M-theory is the fundamental part of the Everlasting Theory.No, you took a bunch of buzzwords you don't understand, like 'heterotic SO(32)' and claimed it's part of your work. You didn't show anything, other than your lack of understanding. Why in your posts are the invectives only? Are you personal? Lack of scientific arguments?You have shown you don't respond to in-depth replies. And a response to your obvious fraud and lies doesn't need to be detailed. Anyone who even reads the 'simple' Wikipedia pages of string theory can see what you're saying is completely false. And you haven't provided any scientific argument for your claims either. You've just taken the headers and made up what you think they mean. For example, you claim Type I is about phenomena between 10^{-13} and 10^{-15} m. We can measure such scales in particle colliders. Strings don't show themselves on those scales. Hell, weak bosons hardly show themselves, you're not even at quark scales there! We can probe down to about 10^{-18} m. So you are demonstrably false in your statements. Want another one? You claim the T duality between a IIA and IIB construction caused the big bang. T dualities aren't physical changes. They are mathematical symmetries where a IIA and a completely different looking IIB construct are shown to be phenomenologically equivalent. It shows how the mathematical formalism can completely change yet the physics stay the same. You mistakenly think it involves a physical change. That's not just getting the maths wrong (which we both know you can't do anyway) but getting the entire conceptual point of the duality wrong. This illustrates you haven't learnt any string theory, you've just skim read pop science articles on it. If you are such good then you can write why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings? Can you? You know, just the PHYSICAL MEANING.If you mean can I explain how heterotic strings are constructed and the left and right moving oscillations have different numbers of degrees of freedom, one in line with the bosonic string and one in line with a supersymmetric string, then yes I can. Is it anything like you've claimed? Not in the slightest. You know PhD, if you will not explain it, I will do it.I have published peer reviewed cited work on the subject, sometimes in collaboration with others and sometimes on my own. I have proven to the scientific community I'm familiar with this stuff. You are stuck on forums lying, just flat out lying about this stuff. If you claim otherwise I'd like you to show how you go from the Type I string to a model of baryons. I don't mean "Give me a wordy description", I mean I want you to end up constructing an SU(N) gauge theory with coupling values in specific ranges which represents the theory you claimed Type I is. This blatent attempt to steal some of the credibility of a mainstream area by claiming it's explained by your work really shows the level of dishonesty you are willing to employ. I am absolutely certain if I probed your 'understanding' about string theory, even just the simple stuff covered in an introductory String Theory 101 course required before you can move onto dualities, M theory etc you'd fail. More than likely you'd be evasive and not reply to my direct questions. Am I right in this? Are you claiming to be competent at the actual details, the workings, the mathematics, of string theory? Are you willing to put your maths where your mouth is? String theory is mathematically complicated and I have never seen you do any mathematics beyond a high school student. Either you think you understand it because you're just plain ignorant and delusional or you know you don't and you're being dishonest. Either way I'm certain you haven't got a clue. Care to prove me wrong? Sylwester Kornowski10-24-11, 07:17 AMFirst, you did not answer my question. So once more: Why the heterotic strings behave simultaneously as the fundamental bosonic strings and the Type II strings? No, you took a bunch of buzzwords you don't understand, like 'heterotic SO(32)' and claimed it's part of your work. You didn't show anything, other than your lack of understanding. You still write the nonsense because you did not read my theory. The formulae (5) and (6), page 14, lead to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. They lead to the fundamental bosonic string theory, three supersymmetry theories and two heterotic theories. Of course, I can write much more about the heterotic SO(32) theory but it includes the answer to the question to you. Can you at first answer my question? You have shown you don't respond to in-depth replies. And a response to your obvious fraud and lies doesn't need to be detailed. Anyone who even reads the 'simple' Wikipedia pages of string theory can see what you're saying is completely false. And you haven't provided any scientific argument for your claims either. You've just taken the headers and made up what you think they mean. For example, you claim Type I is about phenomena between and m. We can measure such scales in particle colliders. Strings don't show themselves on those scales. Hell, weak bosons hardly show themselves, you're not even at quark scales there! We can probe down to about m. So you are demonstrably false in your statements. AlphaNumeric, “you are demonstrably false in your statements”. You write the nonsense because the mainstream theories cannot describe correctly the INTERNAL STRUCTURE of the Einstein spacetime. This spacetime is the scene for the wave function which describes the state of electron. In my Everlasting/Elementary Theory (the E-theory), I described the all phenomena associated with the processes of creations and annihilations of the electrons and I calculated the mass of electron. There is also explained why we TODAY cannot see the Compton size (about 10^-13 m) of the electron. Electrons arise as specific POLARIZATION of the Einstein spacetime. The loop in the Einstein spacetime transforms into torus and next there is its collapse to the photon ball. Next, there is the ‘explosion’ of this photon ball. The collapses and explosions look as the absorptions and emissions of a point particle but there is not in existence a point particle, just the packed photons! The Compton size of the electron is associated with the torus i.e. with the POLARIZED EINSTEIN SPACETIME only. We cannot today measure the polarization of the non-rotating binary systems the Einstein spacetime consists of. The QED is associated with the photon-ball stadium and the collapses and explosions which lead to the Feynman diagrams. My theory includes also the loop/torus stadium and the non-perturbative part associated with the ball stadium i.e. its internal structure and its weak interactions. The energy of an electron disappears in one place of the Einstein spacetime and appears in another one, and so on. Such phenomena cause that the mass/energy of electron is distributed in the whole spacetime. We can say about the motion of the electron wave, not about the electron. When a wave associated with an electron goes through slits then the electron appears many times in each slit so there is the diffraction pattern. Within my new interpretation of the Uncertainty Principle, electron cannot go through only one slit. So once more: there is in existence the Compton-size loop/torus/electron and its lifetime is about 10^-21 s. This stadium lasts 2*(pi) times longer than the Feynman diagrams. Both stadiums lead to the same theoretical results. Want another one? You claim the T duality between a IIA and IIB construction caused the big bang. T dualities aren't physical changes. They are mathematical symmetries where a IIA and a completely different looking IIB construct are shown to be phenomenologically equivalent. It shows how the mathematical formalism can completely change yet the physics stay the same. You mistakenly think it involves a physical change. That's not just getting the maths wrong (which we both know you can't do anyway) but getting the entire conceptual point of the duality wrong. This illustrates you haven't learnt any string theory, you've just skim read pop science articles on it. This is the next nonsense. I try to teach you and others the good physics but you do not listen to me! The ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation was due to the TRANSITION of the cosmic torus into the torus of neutrino. Such transition was possible because mass of the big torus is exact equal to the energy (not mass) frozen inside each neutrino. Neutrino consists of the SUPERLUMINAL binary systems of my closed strings (size of such strings is about 10^-45 m) so the LACKING DARK ENERGY FROZEN INSIDE EACH NEUTRINO is much, much higher than the mass of neutrino (the ratio is about 10^120). But the frozen dark energy in the torus of neutrino is the same as the mass of the cosmic torus. You can see that math in the IIA differs very much from the math in the IIB but due to the law of conservation of energy, the transition was possible. The ratio about 10^120 for the E/m for neutrinos causes that the quantum effects are not important in the Einstein spacetime for sizes smaller than the Planck length. This causes that the non-quantum Einstein Gravity is the very effective theory. If you mean can I explain how heterotic strings are constructed and the left and right moving oscillations have different numbers of degrees of freedom, one in line with the bosonic string and one in line with a supersymmetric string, then yes I can. Is it anything like you've claimed? Not in the slightest. Do you understand what the word ‘simultaneously’ means? You should describe internal structure of the heterotic strings to show that such strings can act correctly. Try. I will show where is the mistake in the non-effective M-theory and why my M-theory is effective. I have published peer reviewed cited work on the subject, sometimes in collaboration with others and sometimes on my own. I have proven to the scientific community I'm familiar with this stuff. You are stuck on forums lying, just flat out lying about this stuff. But this does not mean that you understand physics correctly! And I write about the correct physics, not you – see the above explanations concerning the internal structure of electrons and the cause of the ‘soft’ big bang. I explained how new cosmology is associated with the EFFECTIVE M-theory i.e. my E-theory. If you claim otherwise I'd like you to show how you go from the Type I string to a model of baryons. I don't mean "Give me a wordy description", I mean I want you to end up constructing an SU(N) gauge theory with coupling values in specific ranges which represents the theory you claimed Type I is. This blatent attempt to steal some of the credibility of a mainstream area by claiming it's explained by your work really shows the level of dishonesty you are willing to employ. I am absolutely certain if I probed your 'understanding' about string theory, even just the simple stuff covered in an introductory String Theory 101 course required before you can move onto dualities, M theory etc you'd fail. More than likely you'd be evasive and not reply to my direct questions. Am I right in this? Are you claiming to be competent at the actual details, the workings, the mathematics, of string theory? Are you willing to put your maths where your mouth is? String theory is mathematically complicated and I have never seen you do any mathematics beyond a high school student. Either you think you understand it because you're just plain ignorant and delusional or you know you don't and you're being dishonest. Either way I'm certain you haven't got a clue. Care to prove me wrong? AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that there are in existence the two different stadiums i.e. the ball stadium and the loop/torus stadium so there are the two independent descriptions (i.e. the perturbative and non-perturbative). The perturbative description leads to the non-effective M-theory whereas the non-perturbative to the effective M-theory. I wrote many times why the perturbative theory does not act in the loop/torus stadium. In my theory, I described the transition from the fundamental bosonic string theory to the theory of baryons i.e. to the Type I superstring theory. Recapitulation AlphaNumeric, you and Professors try to solve the hundreds unsolved problems via the sometimes VERY GOOD perturbative theories. This is because the QED gives such beautiful theoretical results. Physicists assume that there is in existence only the ball and the absorptions and emissions. This is not true. There is in existence the loop/torus stadium also. We cannot describe the interactions in the last stadiums via the very complicated perturbative theories. To describe the loop/torus stadium correctly, the high-school math is enough! And you and Professors cannot understand it. Such simple? Impossible! Once more: The perturbative description leads to the non-effective M-theory whereas the non-perturbative to the effective M-theory. Some phenomena we can describe correctly within the perturbative theories whereas some within the non-perturbative E-theory. Sometimes the descriptions concern the same phenomena – first of all they concern the weak interactions. Emil10-24-11, 01:22 PMThe cry of the crank, "You just know the maths, I know the physics!". Ever looked in a relativity textbook, a paper published in it, the original work of Einstein or Hilbert? It's very mathematical. The level of mathematics I've posted on this forum is basic. I don't think I've ever actually gone to the edges of my abilities here, the SR related stuff is first year material. Someone need only look in a text book on relativity to see I'm not being any more mathematical than anyone else. You're too used to reading pop science articles where they remove all the mathematics. It gives you a false impression 'real' relativity is done without the maths. You should actually look at how relativity is done. Would you like me to cite some examples for you? And yet I explained it to you repeatedly over in the recent thread you and MD were being thick in. So I'm arrogant for having a demonstrable understanding of special relativity, formal education in it and published research in models which incorporate it, while you're not arrogant for making claims you can't back up, having no experience with SR and being demonstrable wrong in multiple areas of it? Wow are you ever detached from reality. I have explained to you several times about logic. The paradox is only an absurdity, said with nice words. You must investigate, which means if an assumption leads to an absurdity (using your words, a paradox) AlphaNumeric10-24-11, 07:10 PMSylwester, you complain I didn't answer your question when I did comment on it and you know full well there's explanations in the literature. It's to remove a conformal anomaly in the massless field content of the supersymmetric string modes. One way to do this is to add particular field content in one direction and give it a gauge field associated to a group of dimension 496. SO(32) and E_{8} \times E_{8} are the two non-trivial ones. The preferential treatment of one of the wave sets means their central charges are different and since the central charges pertain to the number of dimensions the oscillations can occur in, the left and right moving modes end up effectively being in different dimensionality spaces. I said I could explain it but the reason I didn't is because, quite frankly, I think you're too ignorant (and too stupid) to understand. No doubt now you'll either say "No!" and spew another bunch of made up nonsense or you'll claim you've explained it and throw in some buzzwords. Either way there wasn't be a proper discussion, you'll just continue with your self advertising. I also notice you didn't address my request, that you demonstrate you can construct the Type I formalism from your work. You don't provide it in your work and you haven't provided it here. Your entire previous post amounts to "I've explained M theory and I prove it by saying I've explained it". For example, while you quoted me explaining why you are demonstrably false about the nature of T duality you didn't retort what I said. You just spewed out another talking point. Are you unable to actually address specific demonstrations you're mistaken? Are you unable to accept when you're wrong? You were wrong, just flat out wrong, about the nature of T duality. I don't have to go any further than that to find a mistake. String theory is a complicated subject, there's no shame in saying you don't understand some of it. It took me years to get to the stage where I was comfortable thinking about some of these concepts. Your actions strike me as a man desperate to convince himself he's not a failure and what better way than to pick the largest, most complicated area of theoretical physics and proclaim you've explained it all? Not disproven it, but explained it. That way you can try to get across how amazingly brilliant you think your work is because everyone is familiar with string theory and no one knows anything about you. Saying "I've explained string theory" is a short simple way to illustrate how wide ranging you think your work is. Such a shame you don't know the first thing about it and you can't do any of the relevant mathematics. Can you construct any of the Lagrangians for any of the theories in question? 11d Sugra? IIA/IIB sugra? You must realise the daftness of your claims? You can't even do undergraduate level mathematics and you're claiming to have explained stuff Fields Medallists work on? I seriously don't think you could even pass the university entrance exam for the universities such people work at. Care to demonstrate otherwise? The more I think about it the more I'm wondering if you're just deliberately trolling. You know posting such a ridiculously laughable claim about something a number of people here are interested in would get a response and obviously you wanted an excuse to spew more of your self advertising. You aren't interested in discussion, each bit of my post you quote you don't respond to properly, you just throw out a repeat of laughable claims you've already made. Clearly you want attention and you're willing to be dishonest to get it. How sad a man you are. You must investigate, which means if an assumption leads to an absurdity (using your words, a paradox)I hardly think you're in a position to tell people to investigate given your vocal dislike of things you are demonstrably ignorant of. Sylwester Kornowski10-25-11, 03:03 AMAlphaNumeric, I discuss, you write the nonsense. I write the explanations to the hundreds unsolved problems within the non-effective M-theory and the QCD. I showed why this theory is the non-effective one. I showed physically and mathematically what we should do to transform this theory into an effective theory. This is associated with the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. This means that there is not in existence ONLY ONE SIZE OF STRING/LOOP. Due to the phase transitions, there are the four different sizes associated with the one bosonic string theory and the three string supersymmetry theories. The two heterotic theories are the mixtures of these string theories. The assumption that there is only one size of string and that it acts in the HIGHER DIMENSIONS causes that the M-theory is the non-effective theory. In my theory, there appear the numbers 10(11) and 26 but they are the number of elements in the phase space respectively of the fundamental bosonic string theory and the IIA superstring theory. When we exchange the only one size of the closed strings onto the four sizes (due to the phase transitions), we eliminate the higher dimensions and we obtain the effective M-theory! You know, within the QCD, we cannot even postulate the exact masses of the up and down quarks. You know, within the Standard Model we cannot calculate the superluminal speeds of the neutrinos whereas within my atom-like structure of baryons such calculations are very simple. I write them on this forum! The MINOS and OPERA data do not lie. The facts associated with the supernova SN 1987A do not lie. AlphaNumeric, I think that it is obvious for all readers that you reject the obvious facts. You lie like a conjurer because there is my electronic book and all can see that I calculated within the high school math (the nature likes such math) hundreds theoretical results consistent with all experimental data from the 7 parameters only. I discuss here to show readers the true and beautiful physics. I do not discuss to convince you that my Everlasting Theory is correct because you assumed that the nature needs infinite time to calculate, applying the tremendously complicated math, how it should behave. Recapitulation My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it changes the non-effective and mathematically very complicated M-theory into the VERY SIMPLE effective M-theory and eliminates the higher dimensions. My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it shows that the neutrinos are the superluminal particles. My Everlasting Theory paralyses because it shows that nature is mathematically very simple. Scientific community has a grievance against me that the nature is such simple. Scientific community should have a grievance to the NATURE, not to me. I can see that TODAY it is not the time for my theory. But because of my effective M-theory and because of the superluminal neutrinos the time is going. AlphaNumeric10-25-11, 02:28 PMNo demonstration, no evidence, no algebra. Precisely as I expected from you. You can't provide anything but vacuous posturing. Sylwester Kornowski10-26-11, 06:19 AMNo demonstration, no evidence, no algebra. Precisely as I expected from you. You can't provide anything but vacuous posturing. My advice for readers is as follows. You can press the field with my name, next the ‘Contact Info’ and next the ‘Home Page’. There is my book, the 120 pages A4 (soon there will be the 126 pages), 241 formulae derived from the 7 parameters only – they are recorded on the page 10 (soon the page 12). The math is very simple. On pages 10-25 (soon 12-27), I described the phase transitions which lead to the physical constants and to my EFFECTIVE M-theory (string/loop theory). On pages 104-105 (soon 106-108), the very simple calculations lead to the MINOS and OPERA data and to the 3 hours delay for the supernova SN 1987A. The obtained theoretical results are equal to the experimental and observational data. All can see that there are indeed 7 parameters only. All can see that the hundreds theoretical results consistent with the experimental data are derived from the 7 parameters. All can see that scientific community neglects the internal structure of the bare particles and the spacetime. This causes that there is the very complicated math. Below I explained it on base of the QED i.e. the hocus-pocus as said FEYNMAN. The real picture of the electron is as follows. There is the Compton-size torus (today we cannot see it because it is the polarized Einstein spacetime only) – this is the electric charge so it has the electromagnetic mass only. In centre of torus, there is the ball i.e. the a little compressed Einstein spacetime responsible for the weak interactions. The weak mass is equal to the electromagnetic mass. This structure of bare electron is neglected in the QED. Outside the torus, there arise the virtual electron-positron pairs. They collapse and explode. This looks as the absorptions and the emissions of the photons by a photon ball. The diagrams in the QED are associated only with collapses and emissions. The hocus-pocus follows from the fact that the electromagnetic mass of an electron-positron pair is the same as the whole mass of the bare electron. In fact, the electron has electromagnetic and weak mass. In fact, the virtual pairs interact also weakly with the ball in the centre of torus. This follows from the fact that the bare mass of electron and the Einstein spacetime consist of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. of the particles interacting weakly. Due to the weak and electromagnetic interactions of the virtual pairs with the real electron, there is emitted the radiation mass and this radiation mass is the scene for the Feynman diagrams. We can see that we can describe the radiation mass applying two methods. 1. The Feynman method is as follows. We neglect the internal structure of bare electron. We take the real mass of electron from ceiling (this is the parameter in the QED) and next, due to the renormalization, we separate this real mass into the bare mass and the radiation mass. But the electromagnetic bare mass of the electron-positron pairs in the QED is the same as the whole mass of the bare electron in my theory. This means that due to the renormalization, the radiation mass is the same as in my theory. Next, we take from ceiling the fine structure constant (this is the parameter in the QED) and applying the perturbative theory (the diagrams) we calculate one thing or another. For example, the central value for the electron magnetic moment in the Bohr magneton is 1.001159652201 For muon is 1.0011659180 2. My method is as follows. We do not neglect the internal structure of bare electron and Einstein spacetime. The torus and the ball follow from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime and such phase transitions lead to my effective string theory. We calculate the mass of bare electron (see formula (18)), we calculate the fine structure constant (see formula (21)) and the coupling constant for the weak interactions (see formula (58)). There appears the radiation mass due to the electromagnetic and weak interactions between the virtual electron-positron pair and the real electron. There is only one diagram so my theory is the non-perturbative theory. Next, we calculate one thing or another. For example, electron magnetic moment in the Bohr magneton is 1.001159652173 For muon is 1.0011659215 The experimental data are as follows. The central value for the electron is 1.001159652180 For muon is 1.0011659209 The results of subtraction of the experimental data and the results obtained within the QED are as follows For electron is -21*10^-12 and for muon +29*10^-10 For my theory is as follows For electron is +7*10^-12 and for muon -6*10^-10 Why my results are better? This is because in my theory the only one diagram is equivalent to the infinite number of diagrams in the QED. It is obvious that the theoretical results obtained within the QED are only for a few the first orders of the perturbation theory so the theoretical results obtained within the QED must be worse. So once more: Where is the Feynman hocus-pocus? In the QED assumes that the bare mass is the electromagnetic mass only. This is not true but the electromagnetic mass of the electron-positron pairs is the same as the mass of the bare electron in my theory. This causes that due to the renormalization {m(radiation) = m(real) – m(bare)}the result of subtraction of the real mass and bare mass of electron in the QED and my theory is the same i.e. the radiation mass, due to the renormalization, is the same as in my theory. What it means? It means that within the QED we secretly assume that electromagnetic mass of electron is two times smaller than the bare mass of electron! We must change the mainstream picture of electron. We must eliminate the hocus-pocus. Then the QED becomes the very simple non-perturbative theory of electron described within my Everlasting Theory. AlphaNumeric10-26-11, 06:57 PMMy advice for readers is as follows. You can press the field with my name, next the ‘Contact Info’ and next the ‘Home Page’. There is my book, the 120 pages A4 (soon there will be the 126 pages), 241 formulae derived from the 7 parameters only – they are recorded on the page 10 (soon the page 12). The math is very simple. On pages 10-25 (soon 12-27), I described the phase transitions which lead to the physical constants and to my EFFECTIVE M-theory (string/loop theory). No where in your pdf is what I asked. You don't show any string or M theory construct mathematically follows from your 'work'. You just make statements and assertions to the fact. I asked you to show you could get the relevant Lagrangians. Where's that in your pdf? Where do you construct the field content? The anomaly cancellation for central charges? The Kac-Moody algebras? Nowhere. Your mathematics level I'd gauge to be about that of a 16 year old. I have never seen you do anything I'd consider degree level, let alone stuff which is considered advanced PhD level. Rather than produce another post where you just repeat baseless assertions why don't you step up and provide what I requested? Constructing the Type II massless field content is something any string theory researcher should be familiar with, particularly those working in dualities. You've made numerous claims you explain such things so you must be able to produce them in your work. Let's see it. Oh and don't think I didn't notice you completely ignored my explanation of how you are categorically wrong about T duality. When you ignore things like that it shows you know you've been caught but you can't admit it. Sylwester Kornowski10-27-11, 05:21 AMAlphaNumeric, your last post, the same as many others, is terrible. You, PhD, in spite of our very long ‘discussion completely do not understand what is the place of my Everlasting Theory in the M-theory, the SM and Gravity. I never claimed that due to my theory we must change whole physics. My theory shows which elements we must change or ADD to the mainstream theories to obtain the effective theories or better picture of nature. The first diagram in my book titled ‘Main ideas’ and the description associated with it show the range of my theory. I never claimed that the M-theory as a whole is incorrect. I clam that due to the transition from the ONLY ONE TORUS acting in HIGHER DIMENSIONS in the mainstream M-theory (I claim that such assumption is awful) to the phase transitions in my theory which lead to four tori with different sizes, we obtain the effective M-theory. This ‘small’ change in the mainstream M-theory does not need a Lagrangian function, differentials, integrals, equations of motion, equations of state or a perturbative theory. But such simple change is the milestone in the ultimate theory. I never claimed that the Schrodinger equation is incorrect. I claim that incompetence and ignorance concerning the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and bare particles lead to tremendous number of wrong interpretations within the quantum physics. But in generally, the quantum physics is the correct theory. To solve the tremendous number of the unsolved problems within the quantum physics we need the high school math. But the needed changes in the quantum physics which we can describe by means of the high school math are the milestones in the ultimate theory. I never claimed that the Einstein equations are incorrect. But they are incomplete because the neutrinos are the superluminal particles. To explain it, we must ADD to the QCD my atom-like structure of baryons and the photon-gluon transitions. My theory leads to the 8 gluons and to the masses of the quarks but in the QCD is many wrong conclusions and many parts should be removed. To do it we need the high school math only but the atom-like structure of baryons is the milestone of the ultimate theory. I want to write also something interesting about the SR. Does the relativity change the mass of an accelerated particle i.e. its internal structure, or does not or both solutions are possible? To answer this question we must know the internal structure of the bare particles and the Einstein spacetime. The SR and GR say practically nothing about such problems. And my theory solves them. The lacking part of the GR is the milestone also in the ultimate theory. To do it we need the high school math only. The QED gives good results due to the two lucky assumptions. First, we must formulate theory in which the observed mass is the parameter and we must separate this mass into the bare mass and radiation mass. This theory is not theory about the bare electron i.e. about its internal structure. Fortunately, this theory is based on the creations and annihilations of the electron-positron pairs which appear in the radiation field. This means that the QED is about the radiation field of INTERACTING ELECTRON. Fortunately, the electromagnetic bare mass of the electron-positron pairs is equal to the bare mass of electron in my theory. The QED describes the electromagnetic interactions of electron ONLY. But my theory shows, i.e. the internal structure of the bare electron (it is neglected in the QED) that electron interacts also weakly and the coupling constant of these interactions leads to the superluminal neutrinos. This means that the QED is incomplete and the lacking part is the milestone in the ultimate theory. The lacking part we can describe by means of the high school math but this not mean that the changes are not important. And so on…. Once more: Generally, I claim that my theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory. This theory shows which parts in the mainstream theories must be changed, describes the lacking parts and shows which interpretations are incorrect. Generally, my theory is about the internal structures of the particles and the two spacetimes. This theory describes the interactions of the bare particles, not the interactions via the collapsing and exploding PAIRS. My theory shows that in many cases we can eliminate the perturbative theories and obtain better (for example, better than within the QED or QCD) and much better results or calculate physical quantities (as, for example, physical constants), impossible within the mainstream theories. Albert Einstein wrote that calculations should be such simple as it is possible, but not simpler. My theory shows where the lower limit for the simplifications is. There will not be in existence the ultimate theory without my Everlasting Theory. I will wait till the scientific community will be ready to understand it i.e. that the mainstream M-theory and SM are the ineffective theories without my Everlasting Theory. Sylwester Kornowski10-27-11, 09:07 AMI decided to add to the above post the below paragraph. Scientific community assumes that on the lower and lower levels of nature the applied math should be more and more complicated because the quantum effects, i.e. the collapses and explosions of the PAIRS which lead to the diagrams, should be more frequent. But it is true only for the period of inflation. During the ‘era’ of inflation, there were the phase transitions of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes COMPONENTS into the stable, so CLASSICAL, objects i.e. into the classical closed strings, classical neutrinos, classical cores of baryons and the classical objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. Due to the tremendous dark energy frozen inside the binary systems of the closed strings the neutrinos consist of and tremendous dark energy frozen inside the binary systems of neutrinos (E/m = 10^120), the Newtonian spacetime, which is directly responsible for the gravitational interactions, behaves as CLASSICAL field i.e. there are not in existence the creations and annihilations of some PAIRS. The Einstein spacetime has density about 10^43 times higher than the Newtonian spacetime so there are possible the quantum effects. But the components of the Einstein spacetime, i.e. the binary systems of neutrinos, behave TODAY CLASSICALLY. This means that today we can describe the interactions of the stable 4 tori classically via the running couplings and it is in my theory. I showed also that some quantum effects are very simple so there are the very simple calculations. For example, the quantum states of the bosons on the Titius-Bode ‘orbits’ in baryons are the S states only i.e. they are the circles. The quantum effects concern the pair productions. The number of pairs changes in interactions so there appears the more complicated math. Recapitulation Due to the tremendous energy frozen in the binary closed strings and binary systems of neutrinos, today the Newtonian spacetime behaves classically and classically behave the Einstein spacetime components but in the Einstein spacetime as a whole, the quantum effects, i.e. the pair production, are possible. This causes that we can describe the stable tori (closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs suited to life) applying very simple math and this is in my Everlasting Theory. AlphaNumeric10-27-11, 08:02 PMAll talk with nothing to say you are. I explicitly asked for you not to just repeat assertions and to show the mathematics and you do precisely the opposite. It shows your dishonesty and utter lack of understanding. Youre incapable of engaging in discussion, you just repeat endlessly your baseless assertions and lies. Sylwester Kornowski10-28-11, 01:50 AMAlphaNumeric, you completely do not understand physics. It is not good situation in physics that the best mathematicians decide which papers in PHYSICS should be published. Generally, there acts following rule: better mathematician is worse physicist. In physics is needed SPECIAL INTUITION. I claim that I am the exception to the rule i.e. I have the special intuition needed in physics and I am good mathematician so I am able to select the simplest math to describe the most difficult physical problems. Today, the best mathematicians in physics try to solve the hundred unsolved problems via the incorrect initial conditions i.e. via the higher dimension in the M-theory or via the fantastic assumption in the SM that point/bare particles can emit and absorb something. Due to these fantastic wrong assumptions, the decades go by and the unsolved problems still are unsolved. Congratulations for stubbornness! Once more: Today there is regress in physics because we cannot accept my phase transitions instead the higher dimensions and my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos. AlphaNumeric10-28-11, 02:30 AMIt is not good situation in physics that the best mathematicians decide which papers in PHYSICS should be published. I didn't say that. You're continually misrepresenting me. Here's a tip, when you do that you only make yourself look worse. The point is that if someone says "Model A explains model B" then they need to show that mathematically you can extract B from A. For example, relativity explains why we have Newtonian mechanics for so long, it's the leading order in v approximation to relativity. QED explains why we had electromagnetism and electrodynamics. QCD explains why we have Yukawa theory. Electroweak theory explains QED. All of those are shown mathematically, where you extract the model for the explained case from the explaining case. You're claiming to have explained string/M theory and I'm asking you to show it. You initially claimed to have the mathematics but when I looked it was nowhere to be seen. You haven't justified your assertions, you have only repeated them. Generally, there acts following rule: better mathematician is worse physicist.Actually the vast majority of the best theoretical physics groups belong to mathematics departments. Cambridge has it's string theory, quantum field theory and general relativity research groups in its mathematics department. Newton, Green, Stokes, Dirac, Hawking, another Green, Perry, Gibbons, all of them were Cambridge mathematicians. Then there's people like Witten who even have a Fields medal for their contributions to mathematics. You're extrapolating from zero data points. Your only guide is your own prejudice. In physics is needed SPECIAL INTUITION.Which mathematicians can have. I claim that I am the exception to the rule i.e. I have the special intuition needed in physics and I am good mathematician so I am able to select the simplest math to describe the most difficult physical problems.So you admit exceptions can occur, utterlyv negating your point. Besides, I don't think you're a good mathematician (or physicist). Please point me to something you've done which required more than high school level mathematics. Congratulations for stubbornness!You're the guy whose been pushing his nonsense since the mid 80s (that's how long I've been alive!) and gotten nowhere and ignored all corrections and errors. I hardly think you're in a position to talk about being stubborn. And you have failed to accomplish anything Once more: Today there is regress in physics because we cannot accept my phase transitions instead the higher dimensions and my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos. More repetition of assertions, not evidence. You seem incapable of doing anything other than asserting things without evidence. When I ask you not to repeat things for the n'th time you repeat them. When I ask you for evidence, you just repeat assertions. Do you have a learning difficult? What is the reason you are utterly unable to have a proper discussion? Sylwester Kornowski10-28-11, 05:20 AMAlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because your ‘conclusions’ look as a paranoia. I am physicist, Master of Physics and teacher of physics. There were the all needed examinations. My Master’s thesis is the “Optical Activity of Macro- and Biomolecules”. This paper is written in the quantum language. There is the Hamiltonian function and the perturbative series expansion. There are my OWN calculations. I obtained for it the best degree. You know, you still call in question my education. You know, this is a slander. This is the penal act. Do not try to do it again. You repeat it constantly because you are the loser in the discussion with me. There is indeed the regress in physics and it lasts decades. The phase transitions I formulated in 1997 whereas the atom-like structure of baryons in 1985. You completely do not understand that my theory describes the interactions of my closed strings. The math is very simple. There are following chapters in which I described the creation, internal structure, stability and interactions of the binary systems of the closed strings i.e. the bosonic string theory: “Phase transitions of Newtonian spacetime….” and “The weak interactions of baryons lead to the fundamental force”. I described the interactions of the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the evolution of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang (this is the new cosmology on pages 57-73). They are the three the superstring theories. My whole book describes also the heterotic theories. My whole book is about the effective M-theory. You are big liar. You write still the nonsense and the encyclopaedic information. It is awful because you claim that you are the PhD. Now I understand why there is the regress in physics. You are the loser and you will be the loser in the future because there will not be a progress in physics without my M-theory, i.e. without the interactions described within my phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, and without my atom-like structure of baryons which leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Within my M-theory and within my atom-like structure of baryons I calculated the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. You lie and lie and lie. But all see that you are the liar because my math and my theoretical results are in my book. Can you stop to write the posts which look as a paranoia? Can you stop to write the obvious facts? Can you read my posts and my book with needed self-communion? You write “…. not evidence, not evidence, not evidence..”. This is paranoia because there are the 126 pages, 241 formulae, hundreds theoretical results, many tables and figures, there are calculated also the all needed couplings so we can describe all interactions of the STABLE objects without the quantum physics. Do you understand such SIMPLE explanation? There are also a few functions showing how some physical values depend on the changing energy. Reiku10-28-11, 03:26 PMThe two biggest wrong conclusions within the mainstream theories caused by the wrong initial conditions are as follows: 1. That the Universe quite unexpectedly can accelerate its expansion. 2. That neutrinos, which carry the mass, cannot move with speeds higher than the massless photons and gluons i.e. than the c. The correct conclusions are as follows: 1. The dark energy is the a little compressed gas composed of the binary systems of neutrinos (they are moving with the speed c) i.e. the little compressed Einstein spacetime. The compression was due to the collapse of the object before the ‘soft’ big bang after the era of inflation. Such expansion is smooth whereas the illusion of acceleration of expansion of the Universe is due to the neglected phenomena. A quite unexpected acceleration is impossible. 2. The Special Relativity concerns the objects composed of the binary systems of neutrinos, not the neutrinos. When relativistic speed is equal to the c then spin speeds are equal to zero. Since there is obligatory the law of conservation of spin then there are the tremendous inflows of the binary systems of neutrinos, i.e. of the Einstein spacetime components, into the relativistic object. We can say that there is collapse of the Einstein spacetime. This causes that mass of such relativistic object should be infinite. Moreover, the electromagnetism is directly associated with the Einstein spacetime whereas the gravity only indirectly. Due to the internal structure of the binary systems of neutrinos, they can produce the transverse waves only, i.e. in the Einstein spacetime the gravitational waves and gravitons cannot appear. Gravity is directly associated with the Newtonian spacetime (see the ET – there are the two spacetimes) whereas the gravitational constant G follows from the internal structure of the neutrinos and the Newtonian spacetime. I doubt, just by reading this, you actually know any fundamental mathematics behind neutrino's? Yes, would I be right? Your contentions and buzzwords are totally out of place, even for an alternative theory. Sylwester Kornowski10-29-11, 03:05 AMWhy here people do not discuss via scientific arguments? Even the PhD AlphaNumeric cannot do it. Probably no one taught them how such discussion should look. I will try to teach them how such discussion should look on base of the QED. Before, I wrote that the QED is the incomplete theory of electron. This theory is about the electromagnetic interactions ONLY of the electron-positron pairs and photons which lead to the radiation mass of electron. The observed mass of electron is the parameter in the QED so within the QED we cannot derive this mass from a more fundamental theory than the QED. The hocus-pocus in the QED follows from the fact that the bare mass of electron is equal to the BARE ELECTROMAGNETIC MASS OF THE FERMION-ANTIFERMION PAIR. This means that in silence in the QED is assumed that the electromagnetic mass of one bare electron is two times smaller than its bare mass. The bare electromagnetic mass of the pair we obtain applying the next parameter in the QED i.e. the field normalization Z. This means that we have two parameters, i.e. the observed mass of electron and the field normalization Z which leads to the bare electromagnetic mass of the electron-positron pair. This is obvious that the distance of mass between the observed mass of electron and its bare mass (in reality, it is the electromagnetic mass of the pair) is equal to the radiation mass. Formulated in such way QED we can use to calculate other physical quantities such as magnetic moment, Lamb-Retherford shift, and so on. Now, applying the scientific arguments I will prove that the QED leads to my complete theory of electron. I claim that the electron-positron pairs in the QED are created from closed photon loops which spin is equal to 1 and that next the loop transforms into torus-antitorus pair (i.e. into electric charge-anticharge pair). In centre of each torus is ball composed of the Einstein spacetime components and is responsible for the weak interactions of electron which are neglected in the QED. The Everlasting Theory shows that the weak (ball) and electromagnetic (torus) masses are the same. This means that my theory shows that the sum of the weak and electromagnetic mass of my bare electron is equal to the bare electromagnetic mass of the pairs in the QED. This is the hocus-pocus which causes that the QED is the effective theory but only for the electromagnetic interactions. How we can show that the QED indeed leads to the closed loops? In the renormalization theory applied in the QED, there appears the Euler-Mascheroni constant 0.577… which via the Hurwitz zeta function leads to the regularization and to the parameter in the QED i.e. to the field normalization Z. There were formulated many different regularizations. For example, in the Pauli-Villars regularization, when we put N=2, we obtain a regularized propagator as a function without SINGULARITIES. The N represents the N-dimensional spacetime. This means that the N=2 leads to the 1D-space plus 1D-time i.e. to the spinning (it is the 1D-time) closed loop (it is the 1D-space). Recapitulation The QED is the theory of the electromagnetic interactions only of the field around the bare electron which consists of the collapsing and exploding electron-positron pairs so also of photons. The pairs are created from the loops. Fortunately for the QED, the electromagnetic mass of a pair is equal to the bare mass of single electron. This is the hocus-pocus. The QED is the incomplete theory of electron because neglects its weak interactions. My electroweak theory described within the Everlasting Theory is the complete theory of the electron. The structure and mass of the bare electron follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. The torus (the electric charge and spin) and the ball (it is responsible for the weak interactions) in its centre are the stable objects for the period of spinning so we can reject the quantum physics to describe it. Within the Everlasting Theory, I calculated the bare mass of electron via the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime and next via the electromagnetic and weak interactions of the bare electron with the stable electron-positron pairs (they are stable for the period of spinning) I calculated the radiation mass so the observed mass of electron also. Within my complete electroweak theory of electron, I calculated also the Lamb-Retherford shift and frequency of the radiation emitted by the hydrogen atom under a change of the mutual orientation of the electron and proton spin in the ground state (see Table 9, page 51 (soon page 53)). The calculations are very simple because for the stable objects we can reject the quantum physics and the perturbative theory. All can see that the obtained theoretical results are better than the obtained within the QED because in my theory I do not neglect the higher orders as it is in the QED. Once more: Interactions of stable structures we can describe via the coupling constants. We can reject the quantum physics and the perturbative theory. The phase transitions described within my Everlasting Theory lead to the stable objects such as the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, electrons (for the period of spinning) and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the era of inflation. This causes that my theory is mathematically very simple and gives the better results than the theories containing the quantum physics and perturbative theory. Description of nature is very simple when we know the internal structure of the BARE PARTICLES AND THE SPACETIMES. Is it clear? AlphaNumeric10-29-11, 06:57 PMAlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because your ‘conclusions’ look as a paranoia.What am I paranoid about? You appear to be using that word incorrectly. I am physicist, Master of Physics and teacher of physics. There were the all needed examinations. My Master’s thesis is the “Optical Activity of Macro- and Biomolecules”. This paper is written in the quantum language. There is the Hamiltonian function and the perturbative series expansion. There are my OWN calculations. I obtained for it the best degree. I find it hard to believe you are qualified to that level, given the nonsense you come out with. You know, you still call in question my education.So I'm not paranoid, I'm dismissive. Do you understand the difference? You know, this is a slander. This is the penal act. Actually you mean libel, as it is written. Slander is spoken. As for the accuracy of what I said, I said I haven't seen you do any mathematics beyond high school level. I've given you plenty of opportunities, as I've repeatedly asked for such things, and you haven't provided. All the mathematics in your documents is extremely basic. If I am wrong in this assessment please point me to something you have written in your pdf or on this forum where you demonstrate a working understanding of degree level mathematics. Do not try to do it again.Or what? You repeat it constantly because you are the loser in the discussion with me. I repeat it because it's true (you haven't provided any beyond high school level mathematics) and because you refuse to provide the mathematics I request which you claim to have. I have not seen you provide any mathematics which demonstrates string theory is explained by your work and you refuse to provide it. .... paragraph of self advertising and assertionsThat is why I question your physics/maths knowledge, you seem incapable of engaging in rational discourse. You are the loser and you will be the loser in the future because there will not be a progress in physics without my M-theoryAs you just said, you're been peddling this since the mid 80s. There's been HUGE advances in all areas of physics in the last 25~30 years so your claim is demonstrably false. You call me a loser but you're the one stuck in the pseudo section of a forum, unable to publish his work and considered a hack. I get paid to do physics, I engage in scientific discourse multiple times a week. You need to be a little more realistic and a little less delusional. This is paranoia because there are the 126 pages, 241 formulae, hundreds theoretical results, many tables and figures, None of which have anything to do with demonstrating your claims about string/M theory correct. That's what I have repeatedly asked for and you can't provide. Why here people do not discuss via scientific arguments? Even the PhD AlphaNumeric cannot do it. Because when I ask you a question you refuse to answer it and instead spew out paragraphs of repetitive assertions you refuse to answer questions on. The issue here is you. Probably no one taught them how such discussion should look.I managed to get more qualifications than you in physics so clearly someone thinks I'm capable of it. I will try to teach them how such discussion should look.... [proceeds to spew assertions without evidence]Thanks for proving my point. You won't answer questions and you don't know what scientific discourse is. Is it clear?It is clear you are unable to answer simple direct questions or engage in honest discussion. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-11, 04:50 AMI repeat it because it's true (you haven't provided any beyond high school level mathematics)…… And it shows that there is something wrong with you. I apply the very simple mathematic because to describe the STABLE STRUCTURES such as my closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, electrons for period of spinning and the objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation, WE DO NOT NEED THE QUANTUM PHYSICS AND PERTURBATIVE THEORY. I will explain you this as a child. To describe the gravitational force between the STABLE Earth and Moon, we need the coupling constant only. To do this we do not need quantum physics and perturbative theory. We need the quantum physics to describe state and motions of, for example, electrons for periods longer than the period of spinning because then the electron disappears in one place of space and appears in another one, and so on. This leads to the wave function and the Schrodinger equation. Difference between the ineffective M-theory and my effective M-theory follows from the fact that the first theory neglects the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime which lead to the STABLE OBJECTS. Recapitulation I apply the simple math not because I cannot apply the very complicated math. This is the nature which needs the simple math to know its behaviour. Scientific community do not know that in the microworld (you know it due to my posts and because you read my book) are the STABLE STRUCTURES. Once more: I apply the simple math because due to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, there appear the stable structures. To describe interactions and motions of largest and smallest stable structures we do not need the quantum physics and perturbative theories. It is tragedy because I wrote it tens times and you, PhD, still do not understand such simple conclusion. AlphaNumeric10-30-11, 06:05 AMJesus, you just don't get it! You claim string theory is explained by your work. Thus you must show string theory follows from it. Thus you need to reproduce some central aspect of string theory from your work. String theory is, almost in its entirety, complex mathematics. Thus if you haven't produced some complex mathematics you can't have shown you have explained string theory because you haven't actually got any string theory! I am not saying a physical theory is wrong if it isn't complicated mathematics, you are utterly twisting my words there. I'm saying that if you are to have explained string theory you need show you can produce string theory. Something like constructing the relevant Kac-Moody algebras or SUGRA light field content would be sufficient but both of those are beyond high school level mathematics. Understand? This is (part of) why I think you're not a physicist, you are completely dense. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-11, 09:27 AMYou claim string theory is explained by your work. Yes, it is true. Thus you must show string theory follows from it. Thus you need to reproduce some central aspect of string theory from your work. I did it. There appear the one fundamental bosonic string theory, three superstring theories and two heterotic theories (there appear the objects containing 8*8=64 and 2*4*4=32 gluons). String theory is, almost in its entirety, complex mathematics. Thus if you haven't produced some complex mathematics you can't have shown you have explained string theory because you haven't actually got any string theory! This is the paranoia. The FOUNDATION of the EFFECTIVE string theory (only my M-theory is and will be the EFFECTIVE string theory) must be classical and due to the STABLE STRUCTURES, the complex mathematics is useless. But in my theory appears the complex mathematics when we want to describe the gluons, photons and fractal field. The complex mathematics appears in the quantum physics when we describe the evolution of the wave function of electron, and so on. But the descriptions of the quantum particles via the complex mathematics ALREADY ARE IN EXISTENCE. I many times wrote that such physics is correct so it is superfluous in my theory. But my theory leads to the initial conditions applied in such correct theories. Recapitulation I removed the wrong initial conditions from the mainstream string theory – there must be the phase transitions which lead to the STABLE STRUCTURES and then, to the 5 string theories. These new initial conditions show which parts in the mainstream string theory must be rejected to transform this theory into the effective string theory. The new initial conditions lead to the correct part of the quantum physics and show the origin of gravity. There are not in existence the gravitons and gravitational waves but there are in existence the particles carrying the spin equal to 2. I am not saying a physical theory is wrong if it isn't complicated mathematics, you are utterly twisting my words there. I'm saying that if you are to have explained string theory you need show you can produce string theory. Something like constructing the relevant Kac-Moody algebras or SUGRA light field content would be sufficient but both of those are beyond high school level mathematics. AlphaNumeric, you assume that readers do not see that you changed the sense of your words. You wrote hundreds times that in my book are not some effective calculations and any theoretical results because I apply too simple math. I wrote many times that the mainstream string theory is ineffective because there are the WRONG INITIAL CONDITIONS which lead to the very complicated math and to too much solutions. This means that we must radically change the mainstream string theory i.e. we must change the initial conditions. Then, the math will be (it is in my string theory!) very simple and we will obtain (I obtained) only the solutions realized by nature. My string theory leads to the initial conditions from which start the correct mainstream theories based on the complex mathematics. Once more: Without my stable objects, i.e. the closed strings, neutrinos, cores of baryons, stable electrons for period of spinning, cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation, and without the Titius-Bode orbits for the strong interactions and the gluon-photon transitions outside the strong fields, the particle physics and cosmology will be in the tremendous regress. AlphaNumeric10-30-11, 02:52 PMI did it. There appear the one fundamental bosonic string theory, three superstring theories and two heterotic theories (there appear the objects containing 8*8=64 and 2*4*4=32 gluons).String theory doesn't contain either of those so your claims are false, as well as unjustified. Case closed. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-11, 05:17 AMAlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that new initial conditions in my string theory lead to new methods and NEW INTERPRETATIONS. Such non-perturbative string/M theory is effective (the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective) and gives only the solutions the nature can realize (the mainstream string/M theory cannot do it). You cannot insist that I write in my theory, for example, about the Hurwitz zeta function because of the different initial conditions, methods and interpretations. But my theory gives better theoretical results and is much simpler without the Hurwitz zeta function. So once more: The new initial conditions are as follows: my phase transitions of spacetime. The new descriptions are as follows: the interactions of the STABLE objects via the couplings ONLY and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions. The new interpretations are as follows: the object containing the 4^3 = 64 gluons is the FUNDAMENTAL STRING/LOOP in the Type I superstring theory whereas the object containing the 2*4^2 = 32 gluons is the binary system which we need to describe the particle-antiparticle pairs, for example, the quark-antiquark pairs. But both theories, i.e. my and the mainstream, lead to the one fundamental bosonic string theory and the 5 superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. There indeed are the fermion tori/loops and the boson loops which arise inside the fermion tori/loops. This means that in my theory, the circular axes of the fermions/charges overlap with the bosonic loops but in reality, the fermions/tori are separated from the bosons/loops. This causes that I do not need the higher dimensions to describe the internal structure from which the fermion-boson symmetry follows. AlphaNumeric, you should just write following very simple sentence: “Sylwester, you are right”. Can you do it? Then, probably, I will write something positive about you. You, as the physicist and PhD, should know that without my theory physics is faulty. The sooner or later I will be the victor. You know, there is the ineffective string/M theory, the superluminal neutrinos, the science fiction concerning the journeys to the past and the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe without any reason, the problems with the ‘confinement’ for low energies, we cannot define the exact masses of the up and down quarks, and so on. AlphaNumeric10-31-11, 09:31 PMAlphaNumeric, you still do not understand that new initial conditions in my string theory lead to new methods and NEW INTERPRETATIONS. Such non-perturbative string/M theory is effective (the mainstream string/M theory is ineffective) and gives only the solutions the nature can realize (the mainstream string/M theory cannot do it). So you have to resort to reinterpreting the models, without evidence or justification and certain no mathematical methodology. Basically you want to spin them a particular way to suit yourself. Its dishonest. In addition you clearly don't know what 'effective theory' means. You should look it up too. You cannot insist that I write in my theory, for example, about the Hurwitz zeta function because of the different initial conditions, methods and interpretations. But my theory gives better theoretical results and is much simpler without the Hurwitz zeta function. But that is part of string theory. If you can't reproduce it as in string theory you haven't reproduced string theory. You're avoiding facing up to this fact by lying. So once more:No one cares about your repetitive self advertising. If you can't engage in discussion you waste everyone's time. AlphaNumeric, you should just write following very simple sentence: “Sylwester, you are right”. Can you do it?Except that would be lying. Then, probably, I will write something positive about you. Why would I care what a fraud and a hack whose accomplished nothing in 3 decades of whining thinks about me? If I did need the approval of others to feel good about my research I need only look at my pay cheque. You, as the physicist and PhD, should know that without my theory physics is faulty. The Flat out bullshit. You live in your own little world where you ignore the fact youve utterly failed to get anywhere in physics. You're stuck lying in the hack section of forums, you've gotten nothing but delusions to peddle. Go you! Sylwester Kornowski11-01-11, 03:49 AMSo you have to resort to reinterpreting the models, without evidence or justification and certain no mathematical methodology. Basically you want to spin them a particular way to suit yourself. Its dishonest. In addition you clearly don't know what 'effective theory' means. You should look it up too. I can see that you are not a good thinker. My mathematical methodology is to describe the stable structures for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory via the coupling constants ONLY. Such methodology leads from the 7 parameters to the hundreds theoretical results consistent with experimental data. So, this methodology is effective/productive in comparison with the mainstream string/M theories. The equations in the mainstream string/M theory concerning the coupling constants and higher dimensions, are ineffective because they lead to too many solutions i.e. to the solutions not realized by nature. My tori/loops are spinning from beginning i.e. from 1997 (see formulae (9) and (10) in my book). Why you wrote the word ‘dishonest’? In the ‘discussion’, you are dishonest only and only you are the big liar – I proved it many times. But that is part of string theory. If you can't reproduce it as in string theory you haven't reproduced string theory. You're avoiding facing up to this fact by lying. The Hurwitz zeta function concerns the different methodology. Do you understand it? Such methodology needs much more parameters than my more effective/productive M-theory. Why would I care what a fraud and a hack whose accomplished nothing in 3 decades of whining thinks about me? If I did need the approval of others to feel good about my research I need only look at my pay cheque. Very impressive, just the pot-boiler. You live in your own little world…. Go you! Communist? I live in my effective string/M theory (i.e. in the real world) whereas you live in the not existing higher dimensions. AlphaNumeric11-01-11, 06:19 PMThe equations in the mainstream string/M theory concerning the coupling constants and higher dimensions, are ineffective because they lead to too many solutions i.e. to the solutions not realized by nature.So then you don't recover them in your work, as you claim they are wrong. Therefore you have not explained string/M theory because you don't produce them. This is similar to your neutrino comments. The particles you are referring to are not what the mainstream would call neutrinos, they are something else. Instead you've used the same name. Likewise here, you haven't explained string/M theory, you haven't even gone near them, but you call something else string/M theory in the hope of making it seem like you're achieving more than you really are. That's why I call you dishonest. You have utterly failed to justify your claims and you've pretty much admitted to having not got what you claim in the above quote. Why you wrote the word ‘dishonest’? For many reasons, one of which I just explained. You claim to explain string/M theory then you admit you think the equations are wrong. But you've never produced the equations anyway, so the claims of explanation are even more dishonest. You claim they involve 32 or 64 gluons, which they do not. That's dishonest. You think string theory says T duality is a physical transformation, which it does not. That's dishonest. You claim to have explained/predicted the strong force while dismissing the SM. I've repeatedly explained why that is false. You've claimed the SM can't predict a value for the strong force at high energies, while knowing full well it does. That's dishonest. You claim to know quantum field theory. That's dishonest. Again and again, in many different ways, you've shown you're not above simply flat out lying. In the ‘discussion’, you are dishonest only and only you are the big liar. I proved it many times. Give an example. The Hurwitz zeta function concerns the different methodology. Do you understand it? Such methodology needs much more parameters than my more effective/productive M-theory.So you admit you're not producing M theory but you're producing something different that you're calling 'M theory'. That's dishonest. Very impressive, just the pot-boiler.Nice retort. Couldn't think of anything better, given it's a fact you've accomplished nothing with your claims in pretty much 3 decades? Communist?I know communism buggered up your country but you really need to learn that doesn't really count as much of an insult to me. You've been trying to use it for years but it's completely without teeth. I live in my effective string/M theory (i.e. in the real world) whereas you live in the not existing higher dimensions.So you think you've explained string/M theory and they are part of your work while simultaneously you think extra dimensions are nonsense? That's a direct contradiction, since string theory needs 10 dimensions and M theory 11. So which is it? This only helps prove my point, what you're talking about isn't string/M theory, it's something entirely different. You've just taken the wordy descriptions you read somewhere and pointed at the bits you think you understand and said "Oh, in my work that means lots of gluons!". Again and again you show you're willing to be point blank dishonest. The question is whether you're just a very persistent troll or someone so delusionally stupid he thinks he can lie about string theory to a string theorist. If it were the former you'd be a pretty sad individual but at least not as stupid as the latter. Unfortunately, given the years of posting you've done on multiple forums I fear it is indeed the latter. How many more years you plan to keep going like this, just whining on forums about how 'soon' you'll be proven true? Was it 'soon' in 1985? Was it 'soon' in 1990? 1995? 2000? 2005? 2010? Will you still be doing this in 2015? 2020? Why aren't you publishing your work in journals? Why are you stuck whining on forums? In 30 years you surely could find the time to send your work to a journal couldn't you? In 30 years I've found time to be born, grow up, learn physics and mathematics, research and submit work to a journal. Why haven't you? Sylwester Kornowski11-02-11, 07:39 AMSo then you don't recover them in your work, as you claim they are wrong. Therefore you have not explained string/M theory because you don't produce them. I see that you have problems to understand the read text. I did not write that the equations in the MAINSTREAM string/M theory are wrong. I wrote that they are ineffective because they give too much the solutions. They do not appear in my string/M theory because I apply the productive methods only. My theory leads to following equation which defines the number of elements in the phase spaces of the string theories (see Table 4, page 29 and the description). The elements in the phase spaces define the number of co-ordinates and quantities needed to describe position, shape and motions of the stable structures which appear in the string theories. N = (d – 1)*8 + 2, where d = 0, 1, 2, 4, 8 and 16 – they are the Titius-Bode numbers. For the fundamental spacetime (d=0), i.e. the gas composed of the tachyons, is N = -6. The sign ‘-‘ says that this space is the imaginary space i.e. spacetime which properties must be guessed. The d=1, which leads to N = 2, says that in the relativistic phase space are the 2 elements more than in the non-relativistic phase space. The d=2, which leads to N = 10, is for the binary systems of closed strings (radius of one closed string is in approximation 10^-45 m). The N=10 (the 11 we can reduce to 10 because distance between the components of a binary system follow from the structure and interactions of the closed strings) is for the fundamental bosonic string theory. The d=4, which leads to N = 26, is for the neutrinos, binary systems of neutrinos and quadruples of neutrinos. All greater particles consist of such structures. The N=26 is for the Type IIA superstring theory. The d=8, which leads to N = 58, is for the cores of baryons and the electrically charged leptons. The N=58 is for the Type I superstring theory and the heterotic theories. The d=16, which leads to N = 122, is for the cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. The N=122 is for the IIB superstring theory. Can you see that the numbers N are not the dimensions of spacetime? The N = 10(11) and N = 26 are most important. In my M/theory, spacetime is still the 4D-spacetime. Within my equation for the coupling constants (see formula (76), page 30), we can calculate the all coupling constants which appear in the all string theories. So once more: my string/M theory is the effective theory because there are defined the phase spaces and the coupling constants. Within the mainstream string/M theory, we cannot formulate such exact definitions. This is similar to your neutrino comments. The particles you are referring to are not what the mainstream would call neutrinos, they are something else. Instead you've used the same name. Likewise here, you haven't explained string/M theory, you haven't even gone near them, but you call something else string/M theory in the hope of making it seem like you're achieving more than you really are. That's why I call you dishonest. You have utterly failed to justify your claims and you've pretty much admitted to having not got what you claim in the above quote. You still write the big nonsense. The properties of neutrinos follow from my theory. Superluminal speeds of neutrinos follow from my atom-like structure of baryons and my electroweak interactions. The superluminal speeds of neutrinos discovered in the OPERA experiment show that the mainstream theory of neutrinos IS INCORRECT! My string/M theory and my theory of neutrino are the only correct theories. We must radically change the mainstream string/M theory and the mainstream neutrino theory because these theories begin from incorrect initial conditions and ARE INCONSISTENT WITH EXPERIMENTAL DATA. For many reasons, one of which I just explained. You claim to explain string/M theory then you admit you think the equations are wrong. But you've never produced the equations anyway, so the claims of explanation are even more dishonest. You claim they involve 32 or 64 gluons, which they do not. That's dishonest. You think string theory says T duality is a physical transformation, which it does not. That's dishonest. You claim to have explained/predicted the strong force while dismissing the SM. I've repeatedly explained why that is false. You've claimed the SM can't predict a value for the strong force at high energies, while knowing full well it does. That's dishonest. You claim to know quantum field theory. That's dishonest. Again and again, in many different ways, you've shown you're not above simply flat out lying. You still write and write and write the nonsense. My students understand physics much better than you, PhD. The effective equations are in existence in my theory. See the first sentences. T- and S-dualities are in existence in my theory. Due to the different sizes of the tori and the formula (76), I calculated the different coupling constants for different interactions in all string theories BUT, for example, COUPLING CONSTANT FOR WEAK INTERACTIONS OR GRAVITATIONAL INTERACTIONS ARE THE SAME FOR DIFFERENT SIZES. AlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense about the T-duality in my theory! 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. 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. My theory unifies all interactions via the phase transitions and such theory is the EFFECTIVE theory. We cannot say the same about MANY mainstream theories. 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? Can you see that you are dishonest, not me? Can you see that you still write the nonsense because you did not read my book? This is obvious that sometimes the interpretations within the mainstream string M/theory and my string/M theory must differ very much because these theories begin from different initial conditions. In the mainstream string/M theory there are two dual lattices in 16 dimensions, i.e. the heterotic-E (HE) and heterotic-O (HO) string theories. In my string/M theory which follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, the heterotic string theories follow from the four-neutrino symmetry (see pages 35 and 36) and the Type I superstring theory. The difference between the HE and HO concerns the different stadiums of the pairs. The HE is for the loop stadium and quadruples whereas the HO is for the torus-antitorus stadium and their collapses to the gluon balls (see my QCD, pages 91-105). So you admit you're not producing M theory but you're producing something different that you're calling 'M theory'. That's dishonest. Your sentences are lamentable. I produced EFFECTIVE string/M theory. The string/M theory based on ONE vibrating in HIGHER DIMENSIONS STRING is the science fiction. How many more years you plan to keep going like this, just whining on forums about how 'soon' you'll be proven true? If scientists such as you will ignore the experimental data, for example, the OPERA data then my war will last very long. AlphaNumeric11-03-11, 08:00 PMThey 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 Kornowski11-04-11, 06:02 AMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski11-04-11, 10:39 AMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski11-04-11, 11:51 AMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski11-04-11, 12:42 PMYou 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 Kornowski11-04-11, 01:58 PMI 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. AlphaNumeric11-04-11, 08:52 PMAlphaNumeric, 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. [QUOTE=Sylwester Kornowski;2850284]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 Kornowski11-05-11, 06:07 AMOn 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 Kornowski11-05-11, 12:17 PMDeclaration 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. AlphaNumeric11-05-11, 07:34 PMAnd 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 (http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2850554&postcount=86), 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 remarksYou'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 incorrectI'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 Kornowski11-06-11, 03:43 AMAlphaNumeric, 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. AlphaNumeric11-06-11, 04:07 PMAs 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 Kornowski11-07-11, 08:22 AMAlphaNumeric, 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. AlphaNumeric11-08-11, 02:18 AMCongratulations, 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 :rolleyes: 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 R11-08-11, 03:11 AMModerator 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 Kornowski11-11-11, 03:37 AMYour '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 Kornowski11-11-11, 03:38 AMJames 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 Kornowski11-11-11, 03:41 AMCan 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? AlphaNumeric11-11-11, 06:43 PMI 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 Kornowski11-12-11, 03:48 AMAlphaNumeric, 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. Arioch11-12-11, 05:39 AM@Sylwester -- This link might help you figure out why Alpha isn't in the wrong by mentioning your "private" information (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expectation_of_privacy). Basically it comes down to the fact that you put the information out there in the first place. If you put your information in a public forum then you legally have no reasonable expectation of privacy regarding that information, therefore it is not private information, therefore Alpha hasn't violated the TOS. 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. Wrong again. You linked the information to this site, therefore you've given up your reasonable expectation of privacy. Now you see why I don't put my information online, it always comes back to bite you in the ass later. Sylwester Kornowski11-12-11, 07:24 AMThe word ‘private’ has many different meanings. You know, there is similar origin of the words personal, particular and private. For example, we can use the words “private money”. You wrote about one of many different meanings of the word ‘private’. This is not important that AlphaNumeric write information from my CV. Below you can find my CV. This is not a secret. Sylwester Kornowski Born: 16-10-1948, Chodziez, Poland EDUCATION 1966-1971 Student in Poznan University, Poland 1971 Master of Physics WORK HISTORY 1971-1978 Teacher of Physics and Astronomy in Secondary School No. III, Szczecin 1978-1979 Technologist in Cable Factory, Szczecin 1979-1981 Production Manager in Cable Factory 1981-1987 Teacher of Physics and Astronomy in Secondary School No. III 1987-1988 Adviser in the Teacher Improvement Centre, Szczecin 1988-1991 Headmaster of Primary School No. 43, Szczecin 1991-1998 Headmaster of Primary (No. 43) and Secondary (No. XVI) Schools 1998-1999 School Superintendent of West Pomeranian Province 1999 Retired 1999-2001 Deputy Chairman of Private Hospitals, Poznan Whereas James R. should not tolerate the invectives, i.e. the caddish comments, in almost each AlphaNumeric post, the lack of scientific arguments and the fact that AlphaNumeric does not understand what he is reading. Arioch11-12-11, 08:07 AM@Sylwester -- Last I checked, which was just a few seconds ago, there are no rules against ridiculing unintelligible ideas so long as that ridicule isn't ad hominem. And so far Alpha hasn't once used an insult in place of an argument. So far Alpha has demonstrated a far superior knowledge of this subject than you have. You may actually have a greater understanding, but that hasn't been demonstrated and your posts so far have shown an almost stunning level of ignorance. He clearly understands what he's reading, you clearly don't understand what you're typing. Sylwester Kornowski11-12-11, 08:20 AMComrade? Did you really read the invectives? I cited them! Did you really read my descriptions about the AlphaNumeric COMPLEX logic? Did he not violate the Forum rules? Are you joking? Such ‘discussion’ is not serious. Arioch11-12-11, 08:38 AM@Sylwester -- Oh I've read your posts and exchanges and you're right, Alpha probably isn't taking this discussion seriously, I know that I wouldn't(hence why I avoided it). I don't have any level of expertise in physics or cosmology(they're interesting to be sure, but my boner is for biology only) and I was almost immediately bored by your posts because it's pretty simple to see where you go wrong. If I can see it that easily being as untrained as I am, for someone like Alpha who apparently has some level of expertise here it must be unbearably boring. It's no wonder Alpha's a bit snide, I would be too. However, he hasn't done anything wrong and the Mods seem to frown on false reports of misconduct so running to the Admins right now probably wouldn't be in your best interests. Sylwester Kornowski11-12-11, 08:55 AMIn the SciForums rules is paragraph titled "Trolling". You should read it. Arioch11-12-11, 03:22 PM@Sylwester -- Alpha hasn't trolled you once. His posts have been insightful and on topic. As for my posts, I've been responding to specific comments made by you, the thread's creator, and therefore my posts are on topic too. Hence there's no trolling here. AlphaNumeric11-13-11, 03:03 AMWhereas James R. should not tolerate the invectives, i.e. the caddish comments, in almost each AlphaNumeric post, the lack of scientific arguments and the fact that AlphaNumeric does not understand what he is reading.So the 'private information' has nothing to do with it, so why did you explicitly say it? Why didn't you just say "He keeps making caddish comments!"? Don't blame others for your inability to communicate. Did you really read my descriptions about the AlphaNumeric COMPLEX logic?And I have already explicitly said you are misrepresenting me. I never said a model is wrong if it isn't complex, I said that since string theory is known to be a complex mathematical construct you can't provide high school level mathematics (or no mathematics) and then claim to have reproduced it. Nowhere in any of your writings have you actually produced, by another means, anything from the string theory literature. Instead you have taken buzzwords like 'T duality' and 'E8 gauge field' and reinterpreted them. This in itself is dishonest and makes your claims to have explained string theory false. It is further compounded by the fact your reinterpretations are completely contradictory to the accepted meaning. You think T duality implies a physical process. You think the heterotic string models involve gluons. This is also enough to refute your claims. Your continued attempts to misrepresent me illustrate why you aren't taken seriously and why I am a little short with you. If you were trying to have an honest discussion you'd accept my "Sorry but I didn't say that" correction and move on. Instead you repeat your mistakes. This isn't a mistake about physics or maths, you're saying I said something I categorically did not. If you think I did say it then provide a link to the post of mine where I did. Provide some evidence. Such ‘discussion’ is not serious.Because it appears you are incapable of rational discussion. The increased peppering of your posts with gibberish like your verses and querying about the 11/11 date of your 'release' only serves to make it seem like you're becoming more erratic at time passes. Are you struggling for attention, is that what it is? You know that if I stop posting here no one else will reply to you so you continually up the antagonising behaviour? First it's querying string theory, then attempting to intimidate by referring to my real name and now you're trying to claim I'm lying about my publications. Anyone who knows my name and has 5 working brain cells can find my publications. Personally I don't care if you don't believe me, you wouldn't understand my research even if you found my papers. Those people who I respect know I'm not a liar and that suffices for me. In the SciForums rules is paragraph titled "Trolling". You should read it.So you are aware of the rules. That's good to know when you next break them. Seeing as you've degenerated into gibberish and clearly desperate attempts to get more attention from me I'll stop replying now. You've had your claims about string theory refuted, your claims about accurate modelling contradicted and your willingness to misrepresent people exposed. As Arioch has commented, this isn't just my view but others reading the thread see it too. There's little or nothing to be gained by further engaging with you, you're just on repeat now and rational discourse seems impossible. If you are willing to be honest, justify claims when asked and be a little more coherent then I'll be in the maths & physics forum. Sylwester Kornowski11-13-11, 05:52 AMDue to your dogmatic behaviour, I decided do not discuss with you, AlphaNumeric, any longer. But I am the true teacher so I forgive you the indeed caddish behaviour. You should listen to me. It could be better for you i.e. you could be better and wiser. I decided to change the tactics to show the mistakes in your thinking. I ask you to consult the answers with your friends before posting the comments. There are the very short sentences in the proper sequence. I know that, generally, no tactics is efficient when opponent is a dogmatist. Such person, for example, does not discuss about the contents of the verses but write as follows: The increased peppering of your posts with gibberish like your verses…. This sentence indeed shows your dogmatic behaviour. You just try to discredit someone without DISCUSSION. Just you assume that you are right, for you there is not needed any discussion. You assumed that you are a genius and all should accept your statements without any discussion. I, as the teacher, can say you that there is very beautiful word for such behaviour: ROUTINIST. Routinism ‘killed’ many peoples. Now about your papers in scientific journals I know that there are the 3 papers in the arXiv. But I, you and other know that this is not a scientific journal. Just it acts due to the endorsement. My question was very simple: Which scientific journals published your papers? And the answer should be very simple for person who is not a dogmatist. You should just write the links. So now, my question is as follows: Are you a liar? The next question is as follows: Are you worker of a Physics Department or maybe there was a dismissal? Now about the string/M theory 1. The mainstream string/M theory TODAY does not lead to the experimental data ONLY. Is it true or not? You should write YES or NO. 2. The CORE of the mainstream string/M theory are the 6 theories i.e. the one boson string theory and the 5 superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. You should write YES or NO. 3. Due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime in my string/M theory appear the one boson string theory and the 5 superstring theories for which the fermion-boson symmetry is obligatory. You should write YES or NO. If you choose NO then you should write scientific arguments chosen FROM MY BOOK. You know, invectives are typical for a dogmatist. 4. The core of the mainstream string/M theory and my string/M theory is the same (i.e. there are the 6 theories). You should write YES or NO. If you choose NO then you should write scientific arguments. You know, invectives are typical for a dogmatist. 5. My string/M theory leads to the experimental data ONLY. You should write YES or NO. If you choose NO then you should write scientific arguments ON BASE OF MY BOOK. You know, invectives are typical for a dogmatist. 6. My string/M theory is mathematically very simple and is intelligible for people with IQ higher than 120 whereas the mainstream string/M theory is very complicated and unintelligible even for the authors. You should write YES or NO. 7. My string/M theory is mathematically very simple because instead of the FLEXIBLE string vibrating in the HIGHER DIMENSIONS there are the 4 STABLE objects described via the 3 SPATIAL DIMENSIONS ONLY. They are my closed strings, the neutrinos, cores of baryons and the cosmic objects before the ‘soft’ big bangs after the period of inflation. There appear the very much modified QCD, new electroweak theory which leads to the mass of electron and muon also (in the SM they are the parameters). There appears the new cosmology which shows that the observed acceleration of the expansion of the Universe without any reason is only an ILLUSION. There appear the fractal field needed in the theory of chaos and the superluminal neutrinos. The mainstream theories cannot solve such problems within one coherent model. You should write YES or NO. If you choose NO then there should be the scientific arguments ON BASE OF MY THEORY, just some examples that my statement is incorrect. I claim that there is 7 times YES. End of discussion. Invectives are useless unless you are a dogmatist. Do you understand that in your last post the invectives are also? They are masked. This is also typical for a dogmatist. Your mistake follows from the fact that you assumed that there are better physicists than I am. This is untrue because there is my very productive/effective Everlasting Theory (see the point 5.). Arioch11-13-11, 06:24 AMPseudoscientific gibberish. Sylwester Kornowski11-13-11, 10:53 AMArioch, did you write about your posts? I see that you also are a great dogmatist. For you, a scientific discussion is useful also. It is very impressive when a biologist helps a mathematician to teach others how the foundations of physics should look. Physics is crying. Mathematicians violate physics. Math is good in mapping and transformations. Theoretical physicists must be good in the cross-3D-picture puzzles. There is needed specific intuition. Theoretical physicists should have instinct to choose the only few mappings and transformations from the infinite number of them, which can create the REAL/PHYSICAL cross-3D-picture puzzles i.e. the bare particles observed in experiments only, the observed fields only and the observed interactions only. Such intuition has only some few peoples. I claim that due to the superluminal neutrinos, there is coming the era of physics in which physicists will play first fiddle in theoretical physics, not mathematicians. To create the REAL world, at the beginning there must be some physical objects (for example, the moving real/physical volumes), not abstract mathematical objects as the flexible strings vibrating in higher dimensions. Such strings lead astray. The physics was the first. Arioch11-13-11, 03:45 PMI may not be a mathematician, but what does that matter when I'm right? What matters isn't who says a thing, what matters is that what is said is right? Come on, if you're really a scientist then you should know that. Sylwester Kornowski11-14-11, 04:15 AMThis thread is about physics. You, Arioch, wrote NOTHING about physics. You defend the AlphaNumeric position but there are not scientific arguments. In your posts dominates trolling, demagogy and dogmas. I will be back here when there will appear interesting posts about physics with scientific argumentation. Arioch11-14-11, 01:32 PM@Sylwester -- Say what you want but my point is valid and not dogmatic at all. In fact it is you engaging in your dreaded "dogmatism" here, stating that if a person isn't an authority in this specific topic they can't have a legitimate criticism of your idea. Sylwester Kornowski11-20-11, 05:21 AMArioch, sometimes the conclusions are obvious. You wrote nothing about physics. Just try. You know, there should be some scientific arguments. Sylwester Kornowski12-10-11, 02:50 AMWhen energy of collisions of protons or ions in the CERN experiments increases then more and more nucleons have destroyed the atom-like structure i.e. the Titius-Bode ‘orbits’ for the strong interactions. This means that the signals of existence of new particles are weaker and weaker for higher and higher energies of collisions. In my book on page 93 I calculated mass of the Type Z particle (weak signal) which should be discovered in CERN. Most important is number 19,685.3 i.e. about 20,000 which is the ratio of coupling constants for weak interactions for nucleons and muons. The new particles have mass equal to mass distances between the charge states of the relativistic pions in the d = 1, 2 and 4 states multiplied by the 20,000. The broadening of the central mass we obtain multiplying and dividing the central value by 2^(1/4) = 1.1892 (this follows from the relation between mass and lifetime for the gluon balls). Respectively, the masses and their broadenings are as follows: the (88, 125) GeV for the 105 GeV, (99, 140) for 118 GeV and (118, 166) for 140 GeV. For the mean central mass (105 + 118 + 140)/3 = 121 GeV, the final broadening is (88, 166) GeV. Similar data experimentalists obtained in the SLD (SLAC Large Detector) experiment. See: http://vixra.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/gfitvars.jpg This means that the new particle which will be discovered in the CERN (weak signal) should have mass equal to 121 GeV and broadening (88, 166) GeV. This is the Type Z particle, not the Higgs boson. My theory shows that there are not in existence the Higgs boson(s). The mechanism how massless particles acquire masses follows from the properties of the Einstein spacetime i.e. the adiabatic rotations of the binary systems of neutrinos the Einstein spacetime consists of, decrease the local pressure in the Einstein spacetime. This causes that locally increases mass density of the Einstein spacetime i.e. there arises a particle carrying mass. Sylwester Kornowski12-19-11, 11:17 AMThe new LHC data suggest that the supersymmetry is probably wrong i.e. the s-particles are not in existence. This result is consistent with my Everlasting Theory. I wrote about it in Internet many times since 2005. There is no place for such particles in the theory based on the phase transitions of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. The phase transitions lead to the atom-like structure of baryons. The Nobel Laureate Professor George Smoot said: "Supersymmetry... has got symmetry and its super - but there's no experimental data to say it is correct” The atom-like structure of baryons leads to the quadruple symmetry for the weak interactions and the ternary and binary symmetries for the strong interactions. The ternary-quadruple transition is responsible for the big decrease of the value of the running coupling (about 26.7 times) observed in the experiments. I can describe this phenomenon in details. Within the Everlasting Theory we can calculate the exact masses of quarks too, of the up and down too. But the QCD must be partially reformulated. Pincho Paxton12-19-11, 11:31 AMThe new LHC data suggest that the supersymmetry is probably wrong i.e. the s-particles are not in existence. This result is consistent with my Everlasting Theory. I wrote about it in Internet many times since 2005. There is no place for such particles in the theory based on the phase transitions of the Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes. The phase transitions lead to the atom-like structure of baryons. The Nobel Laureate Professor George Smoot said: "Supersymmetry... has got symmetry and its super - but there's no experimental data to say it is correct” The atom-like structure of baryons leads to the quadruple symmetry for the weak interactions and the ternary and binary symmetries for the strong interactions. The ternary-quadruple transition is responsible for the big decrease of the value of the running coupling (about 26.7 times) observed in the experiments. I can describe this phenomenon in details. Within the Everlasting Theory we can calculate the exact masses of quarks too, of the up and down too. But the QCD must be partially reformulated. How many particles do you have? Sylwester Kornowski12-19-11, 12:14 PMI start from gas composed of tachyons (the Newtonian spacetime) so there is only one MEAN tachyon and 7 parameters only. All masses of particles and other physical quantities follow from the above initial conditions. Pincho Paxton12-19-11, 12:26 PMI start from gas composed of tachyons (the Newtonian spacetime) so there is only one MEAN tachyon and 7 parameters only. All masses of particles and other physical quantities follow from the above initial conditions. Oh. I don't know what to say really. Enjoy doing whatever you are doing. AlphaNumeric12-19-11, 04:49 PMThe new LHC data suggest that the supersymmetry is probably wrong i.e. the s-particles are not in existence. No, it doesn't. It excludes a particular energy range for SUSY particles. SUSY can exist at higher energies. Learn a little bit before opening your mouth. Oh and I can't help but notice how you ignored the new data is showing strong evidence for the Higgs. Not consistent with your claims. Sylwester Kornowski12-20-11, 08:13 AMAlphaNumeric, as usual your posts are scandalous and you show that you do not understand the text you are reading. I see also that you have no time to read the hundreds articles in the newspapers concerning the actual data obtained in the LHC experiments. In my last post there is the word “probably” and I cited the professor. There is tens of statements of scientists that probably the supersymmetry is incorrect i.e. that there are not in existence the s-particles. My theory shows that there is in existence the boson-fermion symmetry but origin of it differs very much from the described within the mainstream theory. The TODAY status of the experimental data is as follows: 1. There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos 2. There are not in existence the Higgs bosons 3. There are not in existence the s-particles defined by the mainstream theories 4. No one graviton was detected And my Everlasting Theory says that it will be forever. The very weak signal of existence of the Type Z boson carrying the MEAN mass (this is not the central value) equal to 126 GeV was DETECTED in the SLD experiment (Stanford Large Detector). My atom-like structure of baryons leads to the mean value equal to 127 GeV. This is not the Higgs boson. Do you remember the rumor which appeared a few months ago that there was detected the Higgs boson carrying mass about 140 GeV? And what? The same will be with the particle carrying the mass in approximation 125 GeV. AlphaNumeric, you reject the all experimental data obtained in the many experiments which are inconsistent with the mainstream theories. This is wrong policy. Did you hear that the young physicists in the CERN rose in revolt because many of the new experimental data show that the Standard Model is partially incorrect? You know, just my Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory. I claim that in January 2012 there will appear information that the particle carrying the mass 125 GeV is not a Higgs boson. Just it is the weak signal of the Z Type particle. There are three methods to calculate the superluminal speeds of neutrinos. All the methods lead to conclusion that the SUPERLUMINAL neutrinos are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles and it is consistent with my Everlasting Theory. AlphaNumeric12-20-11, 05:22 PMIn my last post there is the word “probably”.... .... The TODAY status of the experimental data is as follows: 1. There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos 2. There are not in existence the Higgs bosons 3. There are not in existence the s-particles defined by the mainstream theories 4. No one graviton was detected And my Everlasting Theory says that it will be forever. Strange how you dropped the 'probably' immediately after when listing the status of experimental data. At the very least you should be saying "There is no evidence for....", which is a long way away from saying "There are no ....". There's no evidence for life elsewhere in the universe but that's quite different from saying "There's no life elsewhere in the universe". You're misrepresenting the experimental data, which is dishonest. Sylwester Kornowski12-21-11, 04:05 AMStrange how you dropped the 'probably' immediately after when listing the status of experimental data. At the very least you should be saying "There is no evidence for....", which is a long way away from saying "There are no ....". There's no evidence for life elsewhere in the universe but that's quite different from saying "There's no life elsewhere in the universe". You're misrepresenting the experimental data, which is dishonest. O.K. You know, your English is better. The TODAY status of the experimental data is as follows: 1. There are in existence the superluminal neutrinos 2. There is no evidence for the Higgs boson(s) 3. There is no evidence for the s-particles defined by the mainstream theories 4. No one graviton was detected And my Everlasting Theory says that it will be forever. AlphaNumeric, Should I explain how the masses (not other properties) of the quarks (they are the sham quarks) follow from my Everlasting Theory? Should I explain the origin of the symmetries mentioned in my previous post? Should I show how we can calculate the superluminal speeds of neutrinos applying three different physical quantities? You know, I try not to be importunate. You know, there is the physics beyond the mainstream theories. The last experimental data show that this is true. In my opinion, we will unable to solve the unsolved problems without my theory. We must PARTIALLY reformulate the SM so the QCD also. Can we discuss it without emotions, just pure physics and mathematics? AlphaNumeric12-21-11, 05:40 PMCan we discuss it without emotions, just pure physics and mathematics?The problem is you cannot provide those when I've asked. You cannot construct string theory from your work so your claims to have explained it are unjustified. I asked you many times to provide that mathematics and you can't. Your abuse of terminology, such as using a different meaning from the mainstream for 'effective theory', also means rational discourse is hindered. You've had your chance Sylwester, you couldn't step up when challenged. Until you can provide those things I see no reason to further humour you. If you're unable to provide those things discussing such unjustified claims with you only serves to give the false impression your engaged in honest discussion. I don't wish it to seem to the casual lay-reader that your claims are worth lengthy discussion. As such if you can't provide said justification I'm not going to discuss your claims with you. Sylwester Kornowski12-22-11, 06:44 AMAlphaNumeric, Many great scientists tried for decades to describe gravity and quantum physics within one homogenous description leading to the experimental data. We know that today such description is not in existence. Do you know why? I know. Scientists do not understand the ORIGIN of gravity and quantum physics. My Everlasting Theory shows that today (i.e. in the present stage of our Universe) gravity is CLASSICAL so we cannot describe these two theories applying the same terminology and applying the same methods. Do you understand such simple statement? The same is with my theory. In my theory appear the tachyons and the superluminal closed strings and neutrinos. Moreover, the three last particles are the NON-RELATIVISTIC particles. This means that I MUST apply different methods (so also terminology) than in the GR and QFT. The foundations of the string/M theory are associated with my theory i.e. with the lacking part of the ultimate theory so methods and terminologies are different but they lead to the initial conditions applied in the mainstream theories. This post is the last my attempt to teach you the obvious truths. I will not try to do it again because it is useless. I am certain that all on this forum understand my position, only you cannot. Dywyddyr12-22-11, 06:54 AMI am certain that all on this forum understand my position, only you cannot. Is your position that you're a crackpot? How many guesses do we have? Sylwester Kornowski12-22-11, 07:32 AMIs your position that you're a crackpot? How many guesses do we have? No. Hybrid. Just penguin with duck. Sylwester Kornowski12-22-11, 04:35 PMMy theory shows that the neutrinos are simultaneously the superluminal and non-relativistic particles. They can be entangled and they communicate with superluminal speed. The experimental data suggest the same because such properties of the neutrinos lead to the experimental data (see my theory of neutrinos). Such properties of the neutrinos show that we cannot describe their behaviour within the GR or QP or within the useless today string/M theory (my theory shows how foundations of the string/M theory should look to be useful). Just the initial conditions applied in these theories (so the applied methods also) are useless to describe the simultaneously superluminal and non-relativistic neutrinos. We can see that we need new theory to formulate the theory of neutrinos correctly. Just we need new methods and my Everlasting Theory describes the new methods. Robittybob112-23-11, 10:52 AMMy theory shows that the neutrinos are simultaneously the superluminal and non-relativistic particles. They can be entangled and they communicate with superluminal speed. The experimental data suggest the same because such properties of the neutrinos lead to the experimental data (see my theory of neutrinos). Such properties of the neutrinos show that we cannot describe their behaviour within the GR or QP or within the useless today string/M theory (my theory shows how foundations of the string/M theory should look to be useful). Just the initial conditions applied in these theories (so the applied methods also) are useless to describe the simultaneously superluminal and non-relativistic neutrinos. We can see that we need new theory to formulate the theory of neutrinos correctly. Just we need new methods and my Everlasting Theory describes the new methods. Did you have a website where you have detailed your theory? Sylwester Kornowski12-23-11, 11:26 AMDid you have a website where you have detailed your theory? Robittybob1, you can see my Profile on this Forum and next Contact Info. There is the link to my website. Sylwester Kornowski01-02-12, 03:43 AMFrom the posts #116 and #122 follows that the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Everlasting Theory leads to three WEAK maximums/peaks for 105 GeV, 118 GeV and 140 GeV. The posts show also that due to the broadening of masses the MEAN value is (88 + 166)/2 = 127 GeV (not central). Now you can compare it with the latest ATLAS news: http://www.atlas.ch/news/2011/figure-combo2.html Can you see the beautiful consistency of my theoretical results with the experimental data? This is not the Higgs boson. This is the atom-like structure of baryons. Sylwester Kornowski03-07-12, 04:45 AMThe E. Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model (1921) in the General Theory of Relativity leads to the new cosmology and to the core of baryons and the sham quarks that appear in the reformulated Quantum Chromodynamics. This leads to conclusion that the Kasner solution is the foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravity and foundations of the Quantum Physics without singularities and infinities. The General Theory of Relativity is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics. This postulated Roger Penrose. Moreover, the scales for the charges (weak, electric and strong) in the generalized Kasner solution and the BKL oscillatory model lead to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime and to the Protoworldneutrino transition which caused the exit of the early Universe from the black-hole state. The phase transitions are the foundations of the modified/useful string/M theory. There is also the ultimate equation that combines the masses of sources of all types of interactions. The Everlasting Theory based on the phase transitions of the fundamental/Newtonian spacetime shows where the non-Abelian gauge theories become useless. Due to the phase transitions and entanglement the new fields have the torus-like shapes. They behave in different way than the gauge fields then we must apply new methods. The symmetry group SU(3)×SU(2)×U(1) is incomplete in low-energy regime. There is lack of the stable structures that appear due to the phase transitions of the Newtonian spacetime. The incompleteness causes that the Standard Model does not lead to the superluminal neutrinos and masses of the nucleons. This is also the reason why gravity is separated from the Standard Model. Now on viXra you can find the extended version of my book, 148 pages A4. There are the new six chapters. 17. Perihelion Precession of Mercury and Venus, page 111. Within the Everlasting Theory I calculated the exact values for Mercury (573’’) and Venus (204’’). 18. Foundations of Quantum Physics, pages 112-113. Here, within the Everlasting Theory I derived the Schrodinger equation from the growing loop; I solved the 4/3-factor problem for the mass of classical electron and described the small additional sunward acceleration of the Pioneer spacecraft. 19. Foundations of General Theory of Relativity, pages 114-115. Here I wrote the lacking initial condition in the GR that causes that there appear many wrong interpretations. Within the Everlasting Theory I described how the sun curves the light – the obtained result is 1.75’’ i.e. the same as within the GR. 20. The Combination of Quantum Physics and General Theory of Relativity, page 116. I derived the generalized Schrodinger equation and the generalized Einstein energy-momentum equation. The conclusion is as follows. The black holes can emit electromagnetic waves. 21. General Relativity in Reformulated QCD and New Cosmology, pages 117-119. I showed that the results obtained within the reformulated Quantum Chromodynamics described within the Everlasting Theory lead to the Kasner solution (1921) for the flat anisotropic model described within the General Relativity. This means that the Everlasting Theory ties the Gravity with the reformulated Standard Model. The Kasner solution is the foundations of the Quantum Theory of Gravity that leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime as well. The Kasner solution and the phase transitions solve the singularity problem and eliminate the infinities from the Quantum Physics. 22. Electroweak Interactions, Non-Abelian Gauge Theories and Origin of E = mcc, pages 120-122. Here I showed that in spite of different methods applied in the mainstream electroweak theory and the Everlasting Theory both theories lead to the same theoretical results but the second theory contains less parameters. In the Everlasting Theory there appears the mass of the Higgs boson 125 GeV and the electroweak scale 250 GeV. I explained why the mass of the Higgs boson is two times smaller than the electroweak scale. I explained also why there is not in existence the Higgs mechanism but there is particle that we can refer to as the Higgs bosons. I described also the origin of the non-Abelian gauge theories. New theory of weak interactions leads to the Einstein formula E = mcc. I proved also that there indeed leaks the internal structure of nucleons. On page 128 I wrote the ultimate equation which ties masses of sources of all types of interactions.I extended a few definitions, for example, “DNA” and “Virtual particles”. The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part/foundations of the ultimate theory. You can find the extended version of my book here: http://viXra.org/abs/1203.0021 origin03-07-12, 05:26 AMMy theory shows that the neutrinos are simultaneously the superluminal and non-relativistic particles. Then it would seem that the new information on neutrinos falsifies your theory. Well, that's a tough break!:eek: Sylwester Kornowski03-07-12, 06:34 AMYou should read my explanation on Forbes. The identified two issues are not important. My theory does not concern the neutrino speeds obtained in the OPERA experiment only. Within one coherent model I obtained theoretical results consistent with the results obtained in the MINOS experiment and with the observational facts for the supernova SN 1987A as well. I claim that in the repeated OPERA experiment we will obtain the same results. origin03-07-12, 07:25 AMYou should read my explanation on Forbes. The identified two issues are not important. My theory does not concern the neutrino speeds obtained in the OPERA experiment only. Within one coherent model I obtained theoretical results consistent with the results obtained in the MINOS experiment and with the observational facts for the supernova SN 1987A as well. That is kind of odd because the SN 1987A and OPERA results were at odd with each other. I claim that in the repeated OPERA experiment we will obtain the same results. What if it doesn't? As I recall you changed your theory to incorporate the super-luminal neutrinos, so will you just change it back? Sylwester Kornowski03-07-12, 08:46 AMThat is kind of odd because the SN 1987A and OPERA results were at odd with each other. What if it doesn't? As I recall you changed your theory to incorporate the super-luminal neutrinos, so will you just change it back? Origin, you did not read Chapter "Neutrino Speed" in my book. Within the coherent model we obtain different values of speed for neutrinos in MINOS and OPERA experiments and the neutrinos emitted by the supernova SN 1987A. The superluminal neutrinos arise due to the weak interactions inside the strong field of baryons. In the MINOS experiment dominated the neutrinos from the decays of the muons. In the OPERA experiment dominated the neutrinos from the decays of the relativistic charged pions whereas the neutrinos from the supernova arise due to the decays of the W. The consistency of my theoretical results with the experimental data and observational facts is perfect. We can claim that one experiment was wrong but probability that all experimentalists and cosmologists who measured the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are wrong is practically equal to zero. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model (1921) described within the General Theory of Relativity ties the gravity (there appears the Quantum Gravity) with quantum theory. The Kasner solution leads to the atom-like structure of the baryons described within the Everlasting Theory. The atom-like structure of baryons leads to the superluminal neutrinos. origin03-07-12, 09:58 PMOrigin, you did not read Chapter "Neutrino Speed" in my book. Youa are correct on that point! Within the coherent model we obtain different values of speed for neutrinos in MINOS and OPERA experiments and the neutrinos emitted by the supernova SN 1987A. The superluminal neutrinos arise due to the weak interactions inside the strong field of baryons. In the MINOS experiment dominated the neutrinos from the decays of the muons. In the OPERA experiment dominated the neutrinos from the decays of the relativistic charged pions whereas the neutrinos from the supernova arise due to the decays of the W. The consistency of my theoretical results with the experimental data and observational facts is perfect. We can claim that one experiment was wrong but probability that all experimentalists and cosmologists who measured the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are wrong is practically equal to zero. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model (1921) described within the General Theory of Relativity ties the gravity (there appears the Quantum Gravity) with quantum theory. The Kasner solution leads to the atom-like structure of the baryons described within the Everlasting Theory. The atom-like structure of baryons leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Kind of setting yourself up here aren't you. Here is my psychic prediction: In May you will declare that the the scientist are lying and covering up the the truth about super luminal neutrinos when they announce their new findings. Sylwester Kornowski03-08-12, 04:47 AMNo. The meaning of my words was different. I wrote about the hypocrisy and in my opinion it is still up-to-date. My theory ties gravity (the quantum gravity as well) with the modified Standard Model via the Kasner solution. There appears the modified string/M theory as well. I showed how we can eliminate the singularities and infinities from the mainstream theories (there appear the tori for which are characteristic the numbers which appear in the Kasner solution i.e. 0, 1/3, 2/3, 1). And what? Scientists still try to show that the lacking part of the ultimate theory is not in existence. It is just tremendous hypocrisy. Within my Everlasting Theory, i.e. the phase transitions of the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the General Theory of Relativity as well) plus the Titius-Bode law for the strong and strong gravitational interactions, I showed that there appear the superluminal neutrinos and the theoretical results are consistent with the experimental and observational data. And what? Scientists still try to show that the lacking part of the ultimate theory, i.e. my Everlasting Theory, is not in existence. Hypocrisy! They do not understand that such situation cannot last forever. There will be the time of clearing for them, maybe only after their death. But it will be. And then will be the time for shame. The history shows that even without Internet history of the wars with hypocrisy in physics is not lost. I must emphasize that there are in existence the superluminal neutrinos but the Einstein theory of relativity is correct because this theory concerns the excited states of the Einstein spacetime and is associated with the ENTANGLED binary systems of neutrinos. The entanglement causes that the speed of light c is the maximum speed for the excited states of the Einstein spacetime components i.e. for the rotating-spin binary systems of neutrinos which are entangled. Photons and gluons cannot be TODAY the superluminal particles. origin03-08-12, 07:45 AMUh, OK. So if the the next experiments in May show that the neutrinos are not super luminal or shows that they are super lunminal either way that will agree with your theory?:shrug: Sylwester Kornowski03-08-12, 08:23 AMOrigin, there are the MINOS-experiment data and the observational facts concerning the supernova SN 1987A AS WELL. I described them within the same model. Then, my theory shows that there is no alternative for the superluminal neutrinos. Only wrongly planned experiment can lead to conclusion that neutrinos from weak decays inside strong field are not superluminal. origin03-08-12, 08:58 AMOrigin, there are the MINOS-experiment data and the observational facts concerning the supernova SN 1987A AS WELL. I described them within the same model. Then, my theory shows that there is no alternative for the superluminal neutrinos. Only wrongly planned experiment can lead to conclusion that neutrinos from weak decays inside strong field are not superluminal. The MINOS team has said there are hardware and systematic errors that render the data unreliable for the speed of the neutrinos. The 1987A supernova data is explained without the need for super luminal neutrinos. So I take from your response that if the OPERA experiment shows that the neutrions do not have super luminal velocities that will call into doubt your theory. Thank you for the clarification. Sylwester Kornowski03-08-12, 09:15 AMThe central neutrino speed obtained in the MINOS experiment is superluminal and it is consistent with my result (1.00005c) 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. My model shows that the fronts of neutrino and photon beams were emitted simultaneously. My theoretical results concerning the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are more precise than the experimental data. origin03-08-12, 09:51 AMMy theoretical results concerning the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are more precise than the experimental data. :D Yeah, why let the experimental data muddy up the theory.:D Well I'm looking forward to the experiment in May. See you then. AlphaNumeric03-08-12, 04:31 PMThe consistency of my theoretical results with the experimental data and observational facts is perfect. We can claim that one experiment was wrong but probability that all experimentalists and cosmologists who measured the superluminal speeds of neutrinos are wrong is practically equal to zero.Except no one actually measured a superluminal speed, a single experiment did and on further investigation it was found to be at fault. Besides, you're making an argument from authority. If we're supposed to assume large quantities of scientists couldn't all be wrong then surely we should accept the Standard Model, right? Except you say we shouldn't. Funny how "Believe this result, lots of people do!" is something you try to use when it's convenient and deride when it isn't. Sylwester, your claims have taken an arrow to the knee. If you had any sense you'd sulk back to the corner of the internet you've been for the last few months and stay there. Sylwester Kornowski03-09-12, 03:48 AMAlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense and defend the hypocrisy. 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. For such persons as you explanation of this unsolved problem is not important because the solution leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Just hypocrisy. AlphaNumeric, I do not want to discuss with you because such discussion is useless. Your mind is locked for new ideas. Most important in my theory (i.e. in the lacking part of the ultimate theory) is that the Everlasting Theory is more fundamental theory than the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) but the GR leads to my Everlasting Theory i.e. to the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Einstein energy-momentum equation) and to the tori which appear due to the phase transitions of the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the GR). The Kasner solution leads to the Quantum Gravity as well and I described it within the Everlasting Theory. The GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics (the QP). It follows from the Everlasting Theory and it was postulated by Roger Penrose. The QP must be reformulated (I showed in my theory how the reformulated Standard Model must look) to eliminate the singularities and infinities. Just there must be the tori which follow from the Kasner solution. I wrote the ultimate equation which ties masses of sources of ALL TYPES OF INTERACTIONS. (see formula (280), page 128). There are six different interactions: the fundamental between the tachyons, the entanglement which leads to the constancy of the speed of light c and the four known interactions i.e. gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong. Recapitulation 1. The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and is more fundamental than GR. This theory follows from the GR and Kasner solution. 2. The GR is more fundamental theory than the QP. The Kasner solution (the tori) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, Reformulated Standard Model and the reformulated string/M theory. 3. The Everlasting Theory and the GR are the correct theories whereas the mainstream string/M theory and Standard Model (the SM) must be reformulated. There are not in existence the flexible closed strings and the singularities. The bare particles are not the point particles. This causes that the SM is incorrect in the low-energy regime. 4. There are the six different types of interactions. The entanglement is very important because leads to the constancy of the speed of light. AlphaNumeric03-09-12, 04:51 PMDoes anyone else notice how Sylwester prefers to simply spew out another list of "Here's what my claims are...." when presented with something relevant but which he has no retort for? Why it's almost like he's trying to deflect. Sylwester Kornowski03-10-12, 03:01 AMAlphaNumeric, you should read much more, for example, the great physicist Roger Penrose books about General Relativity (and Quantum Gravity as well) and Quantum Physics. He claims that Einstein Theory of Gravity is correct whereas we must modify the Quantum Physics. There are the convincing arguments! My Everlasting Theory leads to the same conclusion. Moreover, I derived within my theory the basic equations applied in the QP. The today most important two sentences in the particle physics and cosmology are as follows. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the General Theory of Relativity (i.e. the numbers 0, 1/3, 2/3 and 1 which lead to my tori describing the charges i.e. gravitational-cosmological charge, weak, electromagnetic and strong) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics and reformulated string/M theory. The last two mainstream theories are partially incorrect so we must modify them and my theory describes the needed changes. AlphaNumeric, what will you write when the repeated OPERA experiment will show that the neutrinos indeed are superluminal? Will be there the apologies? Now my electronic book is placed in two places. You should read the extended version before you will write the next posts. I solved within the Everlasting Theory the next tens unsolved problems in the mainstream theories. AlphaNumeric03-11-12, 04:41 AMAlphaNumeric, you should read much moreI'm absolutely certain I have a much more extensive library of science material than you. , for example, the great physicist Roger Penrose books about General Relativity (and Quantum Gravity as well) and Quantum Physics. He claims that Einstein Theory of Gravity is correct whereas we must modify the Quantum Physics. There are the convincing arguments! My Everlasting Theory leads to the same conclusion. Moreover, I derived within my theory the basic equations applied in the QP.I don't deny that we're going to have to take a sledgehammer to current models in order to get quantum gravity. Penrose has plenty of views about how to do that, not all of which I agree with (his conciousness ideas I don't find particularly palatable) but you can't just use the argument "Someone says the current model is wrong. My claims disagree with the current model. Therefore my claims are worth looking at". Saying "God did it" disagrees with the scientific point of view but it's not taken seriously in scientific circles. The today most important two sentences in the particle physics and cosmology are as follows. The Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the General Theory of Relativity (i.e. the numbers 0, 1/3, 2/3 and 1 which lead to my tori describing the charges i.e. gravitational-cosmological charge, weak, electromagnetic and strong) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics and reformulated string/M theory. The last two mainstream theories are partially incorrect so we must modify them and my theory describes the needed changes.Sylwester, you seem to have a problem in thinking that if you repeat yourself enough you'll be believed. For example, you know I'm familiar with areas of string and M theory, on a working level, and we've even 'discussed' it. I've explained how your claims do not reformulate or have anything to do with string theory. Now you might be able to deceive others who don't know much physics but it isn't going to work with me, As such your repeated assertion of things you've failed to justify when I've previously challenged you on them shows you aren't able to provide support for them, you can only repeat yourself again and again. AlphaNumeric, what will you write when the repeated OPERA experiment will show that the neutrinos indeed are superluminal? Will be there the apologies?Maybe I'll go into denial, like you are now. All experiments before OPERA said neutrinos are subluminal. OPERA suggested the opposite and you jumped on it, doing your usual thing of producing some menial algebra which agrees with results to a suspicious level. Now that it's transpired the results involved a systematic error at the very least the amount of superluminal violation will change. At worst it'll fall back in line with everything else and neutrinos haven't been seen to go faster than light. You're currently in denial. You'll jump on anything you think can support you but when something which counters your claims comes along you make excuses. Tell me, what will you do if OPERA confirms it was an error and they saw neutrinos go slower than light? Will you admit you're wrong? Will you say "Oh neutrinos can go faster than light, we just haven't seen any yet!". If, by some change, the systematic error means that neutrinos actually went so fast they went faster than your claimed upper limit then I'm in no doubt you'll find some convoluted way to alter your results, just like you altered your results when I explained running couplings and the difference between asymptotic freedom and confinement to you a few years ago. Now my electronic book is placed in two places. You should read the extended version before you will write the next posts. I solved within the Everlasting Theory the next tens unsolved problems in the mainstream theories.You've been saying this for years and you're still stuck on forums being laughed at. Are you still going to be here in 10 years, still making claims you can't justify? I've explained to you how your work is inconsistent. Until you understand that and address it you're wasting your time but I suppose it's your time to waste. The scientific community will move on, and has moved on, without you. brucep03-11-12, 06:07 AMAlphaNumeric, you still write the nonsense and defend the hypocrisy. 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. For such persons as you explanation of this unsolved problem is not important because the solution leads to the superluminal neutrinos. Just hypocrisy. AlphaNumeric, I do not want to discuss with you because such discussion is useless. Your mind is locked for new ideas. Most important in my theory (i.e. in the lacking part of the ultimate theory) is that the Everlasting Theory is more fundamental theory than the General Theory of Relativity (the GR) but the GR leads to my Everlasting Theory i.e. to the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Einstein energy-momentum equation) and to the tori which appear due to the phase transitions of the gas composed of tachyons (it follows from the Kasner solution for the flat anisotropic model described within the GR). The Kasner solution leads to the Quantum Gravity as well and I described it within the Everlasting Theory. The GR is the more fundamental theory than the Quantum Physics (the QP). It follows from the Everlasting Theory and it was postulated by Roger Penrose. The QP must be reformulated (I showed in my theory how the reformulated Standard Model must look) to eliminate the singularities and infinities. Just there must be the tori which follow from the Kasner solution. I wrote the ultimate equation which ties masses of sources of ALL TYPES OF INTERACTIONS. (see formula (280), page 128). There are six different interactions: the fundamental between the tachyons, the entanglement which leads to the constancy of the speed of light c and the four known interactions i.e. gravitational, weak, electromagnetic and strong. Recapitulation 1. The Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and is more fundamental than GR. This theory follows from the GR and Kasner solution. 2. The GR is more fundamental theory than the QP. The Kasner solution (the tori) is the common platform for the Everlasting Theory, Quantum Gravity, Reformulated Standard Model and the reformulated string/M theory. 3. The Everlasting Theory and the GR are the correct theories whereas the mainstream string/M theory and Standard Model (the SM) must be reformulated. There are not in existence the flexible closed strings and the singularities. The bare particles are not the point particles. This causes that the SM is incorrect in the low-energy regime. 4. There are the six different types of interactions. The entanglement is very important because leads to the constancy of the speed of light. The OPERA experiment has some issues. They modeled the GPS component of the experiment incorrectly and then they found a loose wire? Most [as in all but one I know about] new ideas expressed in public science forums are useless. Measuring Time of Flight Using Satellite-Based Clocks http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2685 Sylwester Kornowski03-11-12, 04:59 PMThe entanglement shows that there are the superluminal objects. The Everlasting Theory explains the origin of the entanglement. It is fact that there are the two issues in the OPERA experiment but the today status is as follows: the neutrinos emitted by baryons can be superluminal. Why I feel sure that the superluminal neutrinos are in existence as well? The Everlasting Theory shows that the generalized Kasner solution, that leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime (i.e. to the larger and larger tori), is THE TANGENT POINT for all basic theories i.e. the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics, reformulated string/M theory, reformulated Standard Model and so on. The superluminal neutrinos follow from the internal structure of the baryons so of the torus inside the core of baryons as well. Can you see the cohesion of such description of nature? Moreover, there is the entanglement. Moreover, we can obtain within one coherent model all CENTRAL VALUES obtained for the superluminal neutrinos in different experiments (MINOS, OPERA, SN 1987A). brucep03-11-12, 05:37 PMThe entanglement shows that there are the superluminal objects. The Everlasting Theory explains the origin of the entanglement. It is fact that there are the two issues in the OPERA experiment but the today status is as follows: the neutrinos emitted by protons are superluminal. Why I feel sure that the superluminal neutrinos are in existence as well? The Everlasting Theory shows that the generalized Kasner solution, that leads to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime (i.e. to the larger and larger tori), is THE TANGENT POINT for all basic theories i.e. the General Theory of Relativity, the Quantum Gravity, reformulated Quantum Physics, reformulated string/M theory, reformulated Standard Model and so on. The superluminal neutrinos follow from the internal structure of the baryons so of the torus inside the core of baryons as well. Can you see the cohesion of such description of nature? Moreover, there is the entanglement. Moreover, we can obtain within one coherent model all CENTRAL VALUES obtained for the superluminal neutrinos in different experiments (MINOS, OPERA, SN 1987A). You completely ignored my post about the OPERA experiment. Maybe because it doesn't fit your world view. I tried to find something about your theory but it seems I would have to buy it. I wanted to see what you mean by reformulating QM? If it's a quantum theory then it would have to have a 1/1 correlation. If it's another attempt to make QM deterministic then ....... Bad luck for being so irrelevant. Sylwester Kornowski03-12-12, 05:02 AMBrucep, you can find my e-book (it is FREE) in viXra archive and on my website. Both links you can find in this Forum. I cannot write many times the same links because it is forbidden on this Forum. In my e-book I explained why we must modify the Quantum Physics and within my Everlasting Theory I described the modified theory. Such modification eliminates the singularities and infinities. The modification follows from the entanglement which leads to the origin of the reduction of the state vectors. In contrary to the Schrodinger equation such reduction is nondeterministic i.e. the reduction is irreversible. The entanglement leads to the common platform for the all basic theories i.e. to the Kasner solution and to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime described within my theory. Within the modified Quantum Physics we can calculate the masses of all leptons and quarks as well. The modified Quantum Physics shows why the Standard Model is incomplete in the low-energy regime. The lack of the atom-like structure of baryons causes that within the SM we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks i.e. we cannot calculate masses of the nucleons from the initial conditions i.e. from the exact masses of the up and down quarks. Incompleteness of the SM causes that we cannot calculate SPINS of the nucleons from the initial conditions as well. Most important in the Quantum Physics is ORIGIN of reduction of the state vectors. We can discuss this problem. An observation destroys the entanglement i.e. entropy increases. origin03-16-12, 10:23 AMSo what do you make of this, Sylwester? Neutrinos not super luminal after all. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682):bugeye: AlexG03-16-12, 12:15 PMI'm sure he'll say that's what he claimed all along. Sylwester Kornowski03-19-12, 11:54 AMIn the article we can read that later this month, they will all be undertaking independent measurements. They should check whether in the repeated experiments neutrinos are indeed from the weak decays inside baryons. My theory shows that only such neutrinos can be superluminal. For example, neutrinos from beta decays are not superluminal (see formula (244), page 106). Superluminal are the neutrinos from weak decays of the muons, pions and W bosons inside the baryons. The mainstream theories predict that there should be the remnant/neutron-star of the supernova SN 1987A explosion. Till today such object is not observed. This leads to conclusion that probably the mainstream theories of the supernova SN 1987A explosion are incorrect. On the other hand, my theory leads to conclusion that there should be not a remnant/neutron-star. This means that today only my theory is consistent with the observational fact. My theory shows that the time distance between the fronts of the neutrino and photons beams follows from the superluminal speeds of neutrinos and leads to the theoretical result (3 hours) consistent with the observational fact. My theory within one coherent model leads also to the superluminal central speeds of neutrinos obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments. Recapitulation They should check whether the neutrinos are from the weak decays of muons (MINOS) or relativistic pions (OPERA) or W bosons (SN 1987A) INSIDE THE BARYONS i.e. inside the strong fields. AlexG03-19-12, 01:01 PMMy theory within one coherent model leads also to the superluminal central speeds of neutrinos obtained in the MINOS and OPERA experiments. But there were no superluminal speeds. Sylwester Kornowski03-19-12, 01:09 PMBut there were no superluminal speeds. But nature needs superluminal particles. Only then the wave functions are the coherent mathematical objects. There must be superluminal speeds and they are. Just correct interpretations. AlexG03-19-12, 01:13 PMThere must be superluminal speeds and they are That appears not to be the case. AlphaNumeric03-19-12, 07:09 PMThey should check whether in the repeated experiments neutrinos are indeed from the weak decays inside baryons. My theory shows that only such neutrinos can be superluminal. 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! This is just like the whole asymptotic freedom issue you have a number of years ago. You shot your mouth off whining about how the mainstream has it all wrong and you're right, only for it to be clear you're the one who doesn't understand the difference between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement and low and behold, you turn around and say "Oh I've got a model which predicts precisely the right results!". Funny how your 'everlasting theory' got amended when you realised you'd had a massive flaw in your understanding exposed. Of course amending ones work is all part of science, except rational people don't go around proclaiming their work certainly exact and 'everlasting'. Only then the wave functions are the coherent mathematical objects. Speaking as a mathematician by degree and theoretical physicist by doctorate, thus having plenty of relevant knowledge, your statement is false. I know you don't understand quantum field theory or even non-relativistic quantum mechanics but making blanket assertions on such things on a forum you know to be frequented by people like myself is just plain stupid. You might get away with lying about maths and physics when you talk to friends and family but you aren't going to get away with it here. Sylwester Kornowski03-20-12, 09:36 AMAlphaNumeric, 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? origin03-20-12, 10:10 AMHighest 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 Kornowski03-20-12, 11:12 AMSo 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. origin03-20-12, 12:47 PMThe 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 Kornowski03-20-12, 04:50 PMThat 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. origin03-20-12, 08:15 PMI 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 Kornowski03-21-12, 04:15 AMHell, 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. AlphaNumeric03-21-12, 05:02 AMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski03-21-12, 05:40 AMAlphaNumeric, 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. origin03-21-12, 03:59 PMI 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.:rolleyes: Sylwester Kornowski03-22-12, 04:22 AMAh 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.:rolleyes: 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. AlphaNumeric03-22-12, 04:52 AMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski03-22-12, 05:17 AMAlphaNumeric, can you write something interesting? Can you write something NEW about physics or mathematics, not the personal attacks? Just try. origin03-22-12, 08:08 AMOrigin, 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'. AlphaNumeric03-23-12, 01:39 PMAlphaNumeric, 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 Kornowski06-06-12, 06:24 AMThe 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. AlphaNumeric06-08-12, 06:11 PMThe 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. [QUOTE=Sylwester Kornowski;2944279]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 Kornowski06-09-12, 06:00 AMI 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. AlphaNumeric06-09-12, 03:55 PMThe 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 Kornowski06-10-12, 05:46 AM... 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. Sylwester Kornowski09-23-12, 01:14 PMWhere is antimatter? This question is incorrect. The properties of the Einstein spacetime cause that there appear the virtual electron(matter)-positron(antimatter) pairs. These particles are not black holes in respect of some interactions (gravitational, weak, electromagnetic or strong). But when energy of collisions of electrons with positrons is sufficiently high then the electron-positron pairs transform into antiproton-proton pairs or other antibaryon-baryon pairs. The Everlasting Theory shows that electron can transform into antiproton whereas positron into proton but proton cannot transform into positron or antiproton into electron. Why? It is because the protons are the black holes in respect of the strong interactions! In centre of proton arises the black hole in respect of the weak interactions as well. The entanglement of the components of electric charge of proton causes that the components cannot be in greater distance as it is in positron. This causes that electric charge of positron can transform into electric charge of proton but this process is irreversible. We can see that protons are the antimatter of electrons i.e. the matter. So the strictly correct question should be as follows. Why more positrons transformed into protons than electrons into antiprotons? And the answer is as follows. The Kasner solution obtained within the General Theory of Relativity is obligatory for a flat anisotropic model of the Einstein spacetime! This means that in the Einstein spacetime can appear vortices with left-handed or right-handed internal helicity. The left-handed internal helicity have the nucleons so the protons as well. The antiprotons have right-handed internal helicity. This leads to conclusion that in the left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime, probability of creation of protons from positrons is higher than creation of antiprotons from electrons. Recapitulation The origin of matter and antimatter in our Universe is as follows. The protons are the antimatter whereas the electrons are the matter. Due to the properties of a left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime (from which our Universe arose) and origin of the interactions, the number of electrons is the same as protons but mass of antimatter (nucleons) is much greater than mass of matter (electrons). The Everlasting Theory shows that mass density of the Einstein spacetime (it is invisible for detectors) is much, much higher than the visible matter and dark matter so today our Universe is flat and it is the observational fact. Dark energy is the surplus mass density of the Einstein spacetime in the left-handed vortex. Anisotropy of this vortex disappeared just at beginning of expansion of our Universe – in my book I described the reason of this phenomenon. Sylwester Kornowski10-04-12, 09:52 AMNeutrino speed once more I must emphasize that there are big mistakes in design of experiments to detect the superluminal neutrinos. In the LNGS experiments (May 2012), all measurements of neutrino speed were consistent with the speed of light. Why such results are incorrect? In the above mentioned experiments the 17-GeV muon neutrino beam consisted of grouped bunches with a bunch width of about 2ns. The width 2ns is too short to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed higher than 1.000000002c i.e. with speed higher than superluminal neutrinos emitted by the supernova SN 1987A. On the other hand, the accuracy of the measurements in the LNGS experiments was too low to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed 1.000000002c. My explanation is as follows. 1. I wrote many times that ONLY neutrinos from the weak decays INSIDE the strong fields in baryons are superluminal. 2. Lifetimes of the particles which decay due to the weak interactions inside the strong fields are as follows: 2.2•10^-6s for the muons and then their maximum speed is 1.000071c, 2.5•10^-7s for the relativistic pions and then their maximum speed is 1.0000239c, 1.7•10^-15s for the W bosons and then their maximum speed is 1.000000002c. We can see that, for example, for the 17-GeV, most frequently the superluminal neutrinos appear about 250ns from the beginning of collisions of the nucleons (it is for the lifetime 2.5•10^-7s). This means that the width of bunches about 2ns and the 4 batches per extraction separated by about 300ns and the batches consisted of 16 bunches separated by about 100ns lead astray. Sylwester Kornowski10-15-12, 08:43 AMThe latest experimental data concerning the transverse energy in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV obtained by using the CMS detector at the LHC, are consistent with my Everlasting Theory. This theory can be found on my website or viXra. On the viXra, there is the proof that it was published on March 6, 2012. It was published on my website earlier than the 7 months ago. The experimental data are as follows. The pseudorapidity density increases by a factor of 2.17 ± 0.15 from sqrt(s) = 200 GeV to 2.76 TeV – see page 4 here http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.152303 On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02. Moreover, on the page 54 I wrote as follows. “There is a threshold for EN=2.672 TeV. For energy higher than 2.672 TeV, the NSD energy becomes higher than the energy of protons that have an atom-like structure on the lateral surface of liquid-like plasma. This means that the external layers of liquid-like plasma can separate from it explosively.” The energy 2.76 TeV is higher than the threshold energy 2.672 TeV. The latest experimental data prove that the cited sentences are correct as well. AlphaNumeric10-15-12, 06:27 PMThe latest experimental data concerning the transverse energy in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV obtained by using the CMS detector at the LHC, are consistent with my Everlasting Theory. .... The pseudorapidity density increases by a factor of 2.17 ± 0.15 .... On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02..I know maths isn't your strong point but if the experiment says the value is between 2.02 and 2.32 and you claim 1.93 then you are not consistent with the experiment. You're the wrong side of the lower limit. Or do you not realise 1.93 < 2.02? Should I slow down, am I going too fast for you? The fact you're be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. Congratulations on continuing to achieve nothing. Sylwester Kornowski10-16-12, 05:29 AMI know maths isn't your strong point but if the experiment says the value is between 2.02 and 2.32 and you claim 1.93 then you are not consistent with the experiment. You're the wrong side of the lower limit. Or do you not realise 1.93 < 2.02? Should I slow down, am I going too fast for you? The fact you're be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. Congratulations on continuing to achieve nothing. AlphaNumeric, I can say about you the same. The fact you are be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. You do not understand mathematics as well. But contrary to you, I proved it many times – see my posts. All thinking people understand following sentence excepting you because as usually you do not understand what you are reading: “On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02.” It is obvious for all that my result 1.93 is the 96 % of the lower limit. In high energy regime such divergence we can neglect. Just my theoretical result is beautiful. Very frequently within the Standard Model we obtain theoretical results which differ by an order of magnitude from the experimental data. And it is the true tragedy. BTW, what value of the factor predicted the Standard Model? So one more, my theoretical result concerns the high-energy regime and it is obvious that such result (1.93) is almost ideal. We can find in a little earlier paper the experimental data which differ a little from the 2.17 ± 0.15, for example 2.35 ± 0.15 (May 11, 2012). This means that my result can overlap with more exact experimental result. Can you see that the lower limit in the earlier result (2.20) is greater than in the last (2.02)? I am honest because in the previous post I wrote ALL needed results. brucep10-16-12, 05:55 AMNeutrino speed once more I must emphasize that there are big mistakes in design of experiments to detect the superluminal neutrinos. In the LNGS experiments (May 2012), all measurements of neutrino speed were consistent with the speed of light. Why such results are incorrect? In the above mentioned experiments the 17-GeV muon neutrino beam consisted of grouped bunches with a bunch width of about 2ns. The width 2ns is too short to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed higher than 1.000000002c i.e. with speed higher than superluminal neutrinos emitted by the supernova SN 1987A. On the other hand, the accuracy of the measurements in the LNGS experiments was too low to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed 1.000000002c. My explanation is as follows. 1. I wrote many times that ONLY neutrinos from the weak decays INSIDE the strong fields in baryons are superluminal. 2. Lifetimes of the particles which decay due to the weak interactions inside the strong fields are as follows: 2.2•10^-6s for the muons and then their maximum speed is 1.000071c, 2.5•10^-7s for the relativistic pions and then their maximum speed is 1.0000239c, 1.7•10^-15s for the W bosons and then their maximum speed is 1.000000002c. We can see that, for example, for the 17-GeV, most frequently the superluminal neutrinos appear about 250ns from the beginning of collisions of the nucleons (it is for the lifetime 2.5•10^-7s). This means that the width of bunches about 2ns and the 4 batches per extraction separated by about 300ns and the batches consisted of 16 bunches separated by about 100ns lead astray. Nobody gives a hoot what your explanation is since there's no empirical reason to believe what you say. Plenty to believe you're assertions are wrong. Sylwester Kornowski10-16-12, 08:27 AMNobody gives a hoot what your explanation is since there's no empirical reason to believe what you say. Plenty to believe you're assertions are wrong. The word “to believe” is good in religion, not in physics. The facts are as follows. Within one coherent model I proved as follows. 1. There should not be in existence a remnant (i.e. neutron star) due to the supernova SN 1987A explosion. It is consistent with the observational facts. Somebody can claim that there can be neutron star but for some reason it is invisible. All can see that such statement is a part of religion, not of physics. 2. The time distance between the fronts of the most speedy superluminal neutrinos and photons should be about 3 hours. It is consistent with the observational facts. Somebody can claim that the time distance follows from structure of the supernova but such model needs much more parameters than my theory. 3. My theory shows that neutrinos from the weak decays outside the strong fields inside the baryons are moving with the speed c. Only the neutrinos from the weak decays inside the strong fields are superluminal. The number density of the superluminal neutrinos depends on number density of the colliding baryons. It means that for the energy about 20 GeV only not numerous neutrinos are superluminal. Most of them are moving with the speed c. This means that to detect the superluminal neutrinos we must detect thousands of the neutrinos. Now, you can read the last published papers concerning the superluminal neutrinos. They detected tens neutrinos, not thousands, even not hundreds. We should detect WHOLE pulse reaching the Gran Sasso. There should be a big peak for the c and very low and broadened superluminal peak. Moreover, we should detect big number of neutrinos because only not numerous neutrinos are superluminal. I am sure that as all my predictions on base of the Everlasting Theory, also the predictions concerning the superluminal neutrinos will be correct. I know it because my model is coherent and leads to the time distance 3 hours for the supernova SN 1987A which OVERLAPS with the observational data. AlphaNumeric10-16-12, 06:40 PMAlphaNumeric, I can say about you the same. The fact you are be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. You do not understand mathematics as well.I am absolutely certain I've contributed more to maths, physics and engineering in my life than you have in your much longer one. I get paid to do things like quantum mechanics, to bring workable solutions to real world problems. All thinking people understand following sentence excepting you because as usually you do not understand what you are reading: “On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02.” It is obvious for all that my result 1.93 is the 96 % of the lower limit. In high energy regime such divergence we can neglect. Just my theoretical result is beautiful. Very frequently within the Standard Model we obtain theoretical results which differ by an order of magnitude from the experimental data. And it is the true tragedyDoesn't cut it. The error bars put the value between 2.02 and 2.32. If we were to accept 1.93 then the error bars would have to cover that value. You're making up an excuse why you can ignore the error bars. If we can measure something to within a 1% accuracy then you cannot then say "It's okay, I'm 97% of the measured value!" because you're be outside the experimentally allowed region. That's precisely what is going on here, you're rewording things to talk about percentages all in an attempt to hide the fact you missed the experimental window. Anything less than 100% of the lower limit is, by definition, inconsistent with the data, just as anything more than 100% of the upper limit is inconsistent with the data. Trying to make excuses is extremely dishonest, you show what kind of 'scientist' you are, ie a failed one. BTW, what value of the factor predicted the Standard Model? Nice try at changing the subject. What someone else has to say is entirely irrelevant of whether or not what you have to say is value. Your claims are experimentally falsified. Again. So one more, my theoretical result concerns the high-energy regime and it is obvious that such result (1.93) is almost ideal.Ideal? Ideal by whose definition? If it's science then your results are not ideal, they contradict experiments. You're making up your own delusional little world. Again. We can find in a little earlier paper the experimental data which differ a little from the 2.17 ± 0.15, for example 2.35 ± 0.15 (May 11, 2012). This means that my result can overlap with more exact experimental result. Can you see that the lower limit in the earlier result (2.20) is greater than in the last (2.02)?The fact the second experimental results are lower doesn't mean the results will continue to move down. Rather it would be that when you combine the two data sets from the two experiments you'll find the region now consistent with experiments if made much smaller (more experiments means better data means smaller error bars). In the case of the experiments you mention both of them allow values between 2.20 and 2.32. That's even further from your value of 1.93 than between 2.02 and 2.32 of the second experiment! You're making it more obvious you're wrong! Sylwester Kornowski10-17-12, 06:47 AMIn the case of the experiments you mention both of them allow values between 2.20 and 2.32. That's even further from your value of 1.93 than between 2.02 and 2.32 of the second experiment! You're making it more obvious you're wrong! AlphaNumeric, as usually, you write about unimportant things. In my posts are all needed results. All could see that 1.93 < 2.02. You write about things which you cannot prove as well. Just a ble, ble, ble… Can you see that you combined the two results to formulate “better justification”? But such motive is comic because the central value in the earlier result is 2.35 whereas in the last 2.17 i.e. over time, the central value is closer to my result. But it is not important! Just my theoretical result is beautiful. I know that you write the nonsense because you are frustrated that my Everlasting Theory predicted such good result in the high-energy regime. But you can write about important things. For example, what value for the factor predicted the SM? Why my prediction that in the high-energy regime there is the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions (0.1139) is still valid? Does the running coupling for the strong interactions prove that the General Theory of Relativity is PARTIALLY incorrect? And so on. Are you able to discuss such important problems? Or you can only write about not important things? AlphaNumeric10-17-12, 02:09 PMAlphaNumeric, as usually, you write about unimportant things.Pointing out your 'everlasting theory' contradicts more experiments is unimportant? All could see that 1.93 < 2.02.Then you admit you're inconsistent with exp You write about things which you cannot prove as well. Just a ble, ble, ble…What can't I prove? Can you see that you combined the two results to formulate “better justification”? But such motive is comic because the central value in the earlier result is 2.35 whereas in the last 2.17 i.e. over time, the central value is closer to my result. You're obviously unfamiliar with experimental data, a fact I've commented on many times before. If you knew anything about measurements you'd know that it's quite common to get some measurements which are a little lower than the true value and some a little higher. The important thing is that they have overlapping regions, which is the case here. I suggest you look up things such as drawing samples from distributions. It's something children are taught in school so I don't expect you to know about it. If you knew anything about how to combine different experimental results together you'd know that the two sets of measurements you mention combine to give an average further from your result and a region of error smaller than either one separately. This only further demonstrates your work is wrong. But it is not important! It isn't important you admit your prediction is outside of experimental limits? It isn't important you're experimentally falsified? I think you need to look up what 'important' means. Just my theoretical result is beautiful.Your theoretical result is not beautiful and more importantly, it isn't right! I know that you write the nonsense because you are frustrated that my Everlasting Theory predicted such good result in the high-energy regime.You are inconsistent with experimental data. How can I be frustrated by that? I'm laughing at you. But you can write about important things. For example, what value for the factor predicted the SM? Why my prediction that in the high-energy regime there is the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions (0.1139) is still valid? Does the running coupling for the strong interactions prove that the General Theory of Relativity is PARTIALLY incorrect? And so on. Are you able to discuss such important problems? Or you can only write about not important things?You're attempting to change the subject and further more, in doing so you show how you don't understand the SM or GR or experiments. But then you've already shown that. You're outside of experimental bounds. Twice. Your work has failed. Again. Now you've made it so obvious everyone can see it. Well, everyone but you because you're deluded about your competency. The 30 years of accomplishing nothing should have given you a clue. Sylwester Kornowski10-18-12, 09:27 AMAlphaNumeric, no one sentence in your last post is worthy of notice. Just there are the claims without proofs. Professors teach students since 1964 that nucleons consist of the up and down quarks but they cannot prove it i.e. they cannot define exact masses of these quarks and show that such masses lead to the masses and spins of the nucleons. Can you see the 48 years without a proof? Without my theory, it will last forever. My theory shows that there are in existence the sham quarks but we cannot calculate the masses of the nucleons from the masses of the sham quarks. The nature acts in different way so I claim that the mass and spin problems of the nucleons will be never solved without my theory. This follows from the fact that scientists do not know the real properties of the Einstein spacetime. Professors teach students that laws of physics do not depend on choice of frame of reference. It is true only when we neglect the real internal structure of baryons and internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. In reality, there is the baryons/spacetime coupling which causes that mass and strong interactions depend on speed of baryons in dominating gravitational field. Just for different co-moving observers baryons do not look always the same i.e. the laws concerning the strong interactions are not the same. This follows from the fact that due to the pion/baryon/spacetime coupling, mass of virtual carriers of strong interactions we cannot calculate from the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. This leads, for example, to the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions (0.1139) in the high-energy regime. This problem does not concern electrons because speed of electrons in relation to gravitational field is always equal to zero! There “is moving” the wave function which describes the state of an electron. Origin of relativistic mass of electrons is not the same as of baryons whereas the neutrinos are the non-relativistic particles i.e. their mass does not depend on their speed (it follows from the fact that the spacetime inside neutrinos, which consists of my closed strings, is closed!). The nature is very simple but it is much, much interesting than it is postulated in the mainstream theories. Sylwester Kornowski10-22-12, 06:08 AMIn this post I will prove as follows. 1. Why Masterov is not right? 2. Why we cannot merge gravity with quantum physics for baryons? 1. On pages 35 and 36 in my book is Paragraph titled “The properties of Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes lead to relativistic mass”. I this paragraph I proved that the Einstein formula for relativistic mass is DIRECTLY associated with the law of conservation of spin and properties of the Einstein spacetime. Just I derived from the law of conservation of spin the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. This means that there is the relation between relativistic mass of a NOT virtual particle and its speed consistent with the Einstein formula. Observed divergences between energy of external field and relativistic mass or speed of a particle follow from emission of energy by the particle and field. 2. There are two formulae for spin. The first concerns the stable structures m(relativistic)v(spin)r = spin = constant. We can see that when we accelerate a stable particle then due to the law of conservation of spin (in my book I described origin of this law), the spin speed decreases so relativistic mass increases according the Einstein formula. The second formula concerns the virtual particles which are energy vortices. For example, neutral pions consist of two entangled such vortices. For such virtual particles is obligatory the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: energy(relativistic) • lifetime = spin. We can see that when we accelerate a baryon then its spin speed decreases, so increases the lifetime of the energy vortex and due to the law of conservation of spin its relativistic energy decreases!!!!! This leads to conclusion that for the strong interactions appears the running coupling. The exact calculations lead to the asymptote 0.1139 in the high-energy regime. We can see that a co-moving observer with an accelerated baryon, on base of measured running coupling can calculate speed of the baryon in relation to the Einstein spacetime!!! This means that the Principle of General Covariance is sometimes not valid. This is the reason why we cannot merge quantum physics (especially the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) with the gravity. Just for the VIRTUAL carriers of the strong interactions, the Uncertainty Principle is inconsistent with the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. The Everlasting Theory shows that the baryons consist of a stable structure inside which appear the virtual particles (virtual energy vortices) which behave out of accord with the Einstein formula for the relativistic mass. Such model leads to the ultimate equation which ties masses of carriers of all interactions (6 or 7): fundamental, entanglement, gravitational, electric + magnetic, weak and strong (see formula (280) in my book, page 128. AlphaNumeric10-24-12, 04:57 AMAlphaNumeric, no one sentence in your last post is worthy of notice. Just there are the claims without proofs.Denial doesn't make the flaws in your claims go away. Professors teach students since 1964 that nucleons consist of the up and down quarks but they cannot prove it i.e. they cannot define exact masses of these quarks and show that such masses lead to the masses and spins of the nucleons. Flawed logic. Calculating the masses precisely isn't needed to prove the particles exist. We've just discovered a new particle at CERN, we have the evidence, yet we still haven't narrowed down specific properties of it, including its mass to a high precision. Up and down quarks can be observed inside nuclei by deep inelastic scattering. Furthermore many of their properties can be calculated using hadron mass towers and jet events. The reason we cannot precisely calculate their rest masses is due to QCD gluon effects being very hard to calculate. Can you see the 48 years without a proof? Without my theory, it will last forever.Simply being dishonest, about the SM and about your own claims, doesn't make you right. My theory shows that there are in existence the sham quarks but we cannot calculate the masses of the nucleons from the masses of the sham quarks. The nature acts in different way so I claim that the mass and spin problems of the nucleons will be never solved without my theory. This follows from the fact that scientists do not know the real properties of the Einstein spacetime.Considering you have not even worked with the raw experimental data but only have worked with how the Standard Model interprets that data your entire approach is undermined. You claim you can accurately predict the value of the strong coupling compared to experiment but that value is extracted from experiments using the Standard Model. If the SM is wrong then the value of the coupling you're trying to match is also wrong, which makes your results wrong. This simple logic is something I've explained before but which you haven't managed to grasp. Perhaps you do grasp it and you're just doing as you're doing with the other data which contradicts your claims, you're just ignoring it. You're wrong on multiple fronts. Tell me, do you think you're going to convince the research community you're correct when it's demonstrable you're a liar? Do you think by lying about the SM you're going to convince someone working on the SM to stop working on it and to work on your ideas? I can immediately see the flaws in your claims, just as anyone familiar with the SM can. If someone sees you're dishonest they are not going to stop doing their work to consider your work. If you have any real desire to influence the mainstream community, to get your 'everlasting theory' to be mainstream, then you're going to need to convince researchers, real physicists, you're worth listening to. You might be able to lie about the SM to non-physicists, you might be able to lie about the SM to most people on forums, but that doesn't cut it with actual physicists. You're so used to just talking BS to people who cannot identify your BS that you think it's a legit way to argue your case. Sure, you might have had some success convincing a few people on forums you're onto something but that isn't going to happen with actual physicists if you cannot stop with your dishonesty. Part of being a good scientists, a reasonable rational person even, is being able to take on board criticism and to engage in honest[i] informed discussion to defend your position. I'm a researcher and each and every day I have discussions with other researchers about my work and their work. We correct one another, provide constructive criticism and sometimes have to accept our work is wrong. A good researcher will tell you that quite often the biggest learning experiences they have had have been when someone has demolished an idea of theirs. Not being able to accept it when such things occur almost completely destroys someone's ability to do science. You (and pretty much every hack here with a pet theory) seem incapable of this. You [i]know your work is perfect. Farsight knows his work is worth multiple Nobel Prizes. Mazulu knows aether exists. Not only can none of you justify your claims but you refuse to acknowledge any slip up or error. It seems like you're all after some kind of existential justification. None of you are in it for the betterment of science, of humanity, but rather personal glory. Farsight has categorically stated he was after personal accomplishment, to aim for the big problems. The majority of actual scientists are in it to chip away at the mountain of unknown things in science and if perhaps we do something big then great but it isn't the reason d'etre for us. And it's that mentality which allows a good scientist to not only listen to criticism and correction but to welcome it. It's a trait almost universally absent from internet hacks, you included. You've been doing this for 3 decades, getting nowhere. Do you plan to be doing this in another 30 years? In 2042 are you still going to be on forums, having accomplished nothing? Because that's where you'll be if you cannot become honest. Sylwester Kornowski10-25-12, 06:28 AMFlawed logic. Calculating the masses precisely isn't needed to prove the particles exist. We've just discovered a new particle at CERN, we have the evidence, yet we still haven't narrowed down specific properties of it, including its mass to a high precision. Up and down quarks can be observed inside nuclei by deep inelastic scattering. Furthermore many of their properties can be calculated using hadron mass towers and jet events. The reason we cannot precisely calculate their rest masses is due to QCD gluon effects being very hard to calculate. Simply being dishonest, about the SM and about your own claims, doesn't make you right. Your sentence: “Calculating the masses precisely isn’t needed to prove the particles exist” is correct whereas your conclusions are incorrect. Within my Everlasting Theory, I calculated the masses of the sham quarks as well (see pages 92 and 93 in Chapter “Reformulated Quantum Chromodynamics”: the sham up quark has mass 2.23 MeV, down 4.89 MeV, strange 106 MeV, charm 1267 MeV, bottom 4190 MeV and top 171.8 GeV) but I proved that the valence sham quark-antiquark pairs appear when nucleons interact. Their masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. This means that the masses of the sham quarks are some analogy to the spectrum of an atom and are not responsible for the atom-like structure of baryons, the same as the structure of atoms is not directly associated with the transitions of electrons between the allowed “orbits”. The atom of hydrogen is not composed of its spectrum and the baryons are not composed of the sham quarks but they exist! Conclusion We never calculate the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons from properties of the sham up and down quarks (but they exist) because we mistake the cause with effect. The 48 years without existence of such calculations prove that I am right. Moreover, within my theory, I calculated the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons from the atom-like structure of baryons and the results are beautiful. …..You claim you can accurately predict the value of the strong coupling compared to experiment but that value is extracted from experiments using the Standard Model. If the SM is wrong then the value of the coupling you're trying to match is also wrong, which makes your results wrong. AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand difference between applied methods and definitions. I apply different methods but the same definitions so I can compare my results with the results obtained within the SM and experimental data. See, for example, the definition of the pseudorapidity density in my book (pages 53 and 54). At the beginning, the asymptotic freedom led to the value ZERO in the high-energy regime whereas my theory leads to the asymptote 0.1139. Next, the SM was modified but I claim that such modification is incorrect and the future experiments will prove it. AlphaNumeric, you write still the same nonsense about my theory, you are big liar and most dishonest person on this Forum. You write about my 30 years. It is not true, just 41 years but it is and will be always less than the 48 years when physicists cannot distinguish structure of particles from their interactions and it is the loss of face. AlphaNumeric10-29-12, 03:52 AMThe 48 years without existence of such calculations prove that I am right. This shows how poor you are at basic logic and how dishonest you are. Someone's inability to answer a question now doesn't mean they'll never answer it. By your logic because in 1900 we didn';t have an explaination for the precession of Mercury then we'd never get one. Then along came relativity. Moreover, within my theory, I calculated the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons from the atom-like structure of baryons and the results are beautiful.Shame they are logically inconsistent and even ignoring that by your own admittance they are outside of experimental bounds! AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand difference between applied methods and definitions. I apply different methods but the same definitions so I can compare my results with the results obtained within the SM and experimental data. You still don't understand. The strong coupling constant isn't measured directly, it is extracted from raw data using equations from the Standard Model. Since you say these equations are wrong then it means the value of the strong coupling constant given in the literature is wrong. Therefore your work, which says the SM is wrong, also implies the value for the strong coupling constant is wrong. Yet you claim you match what the SM says. Contradiction. For example, you keep saying the quarks don't really exist and it's a sham. Quark models are what physicists use to work out the value of the strong coupling constant given scattering data. If the underlying model is wrong then outputs from the model are almost certainly going to be wrong. You simultanously say the strong coupling constant outputs from the SM are wrong and right. I've explained this many times, you don't grasp it. You should find out how the strong coupling constant is computed. See, for example, the definition of the pseudorapidity density in my book (pages 53 and 54). At the beginning, the asymptotic freedom led to the value ZERO in the high-energy regime whereas my theory leads to the asymptote 0.1139. Next, the SM was modified but I claim that such modification is incorrect and the future experiments will prove it.You didn't even know the difference between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement until I told you. Then you changed your work and started claiming you could correctly predict things about them. AlphaNumeric, you write still the same nonsense about my theory, you are big liar and most dishonest person on this Forum. You write about my 30 years. It is not true, just 41 years but it is and will be always less than the 48 years when physicists cannot distinguish structure of particles from their interactions and it is the loss of face.So I was wrong about 30 years, you've actually wasted more! That only illustrates my point more! You've spent 35% more time on this than I've been alive and you've accomplished nothing. We were talking about precisely this stuff last year, you've gotten nowhere. Well done :rolleyes: Sylwester Kornowski10-29-12, 06:13 AMAlphaNumeric, it is incredible that you still write the tremendous nonsense and that on this Forum tolerate your dishonest. This shows how poor you are at basic logic and how dishonest you are. Someone's inability to answer a question now doesn't mean they'll never answer it. By your logic because in 1900 we didn';t have an explaination for the precession of Mercury then we'd never get one. Then along came relativity. Now is 2012. They still cannot explain the perihelion precession of Venus whereas within the Everlasting Theory I did it (see page 111, theoretical result is 204.0’’). I calculated the value for Mercury as well. But most important is the fact that you and other mathematicians in physics since 1948 do not understand difference between structure of particles and their interactions. You know, it is already in the curriculum of the secondary school. Now I will try to show you why since 1964 (48 years to 2012) theoretical physicists who are engaged in particle physics cannot calculate the basic physical quantities such as masses and magnetic moments of protons and neutrons. I am doing it because you as usually try to swindle readers. There is structure of an atom i.e. the nucleus composed of nucleons and the allowed states of electrons. There are the electromagnetic interactions of an atom carried by the photons emitted during the transitions of the electrons between the allowed states. There appears the photon spectrum. Do you understand my simple explanation? There is structure of an atom and spectrum associated with interactions. You cannot calculate, for example, mass of an atom from spectrum. Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM. Now about the protons and neutrons The mass spectrum of the quarks and mass spectrum of the mesons follow from the interactions of the baryons! This means that similarly as for atoms, we cannot claim that nucleons consist of the sham up and down quarks. The sham quarks appear when nucleons interact. This is tremendous mistake when someone claims that structure of nucleons is directly associated with the relativistic quarks. So once more, we will never calculate from the properties of the up and down quarks the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons. It is true because such physical quantities are directly associated with structure of nucleons (see pages 16-21 in my book). Within no one theory, which applies only 7 parameters (such number of parameters is in my Everlasting Theory; because the basic physical constants are the parameters as well then in the SM is at least 20 parameters) we can calculate masses and magnetic moments of nucleons with such high accuracy as in my theory (see page 19): 938.2725 MeV 939.5378 MeV +2.79360 -1.91343 We can see that indeed the obtained theoretical results are beautiful. You still don't understand. The strong coupling constant isn't measured directly, it is extracted from raw data using equations from the Standard Model. Since you say these equations are wrong then it means the value of the strong coupling constant given in the literature is wrong. Therefore your work, which says the SM is wrong, also implies the value for the strong coupling constant is wrong. Yet you claim you match what the SM says. Contradiction. AlphaNumeric, there is something wrong with you. You still do not understand foundations of physics. I derived whole my theory from seven parameters. Their dimensionalities are directly associated with the International System of Units. The interactions are defined the same as in the SM. There are the sources of interactions and carriers of interactions. There is the speed of light and Planck constant. And the running coupling is undimensional. Do you understand that the global picture of the interactions is the same as in the SM and experiments? Do you understand that we can calculate, for example, ratios of physical quantities for different energies? And so on. Frequently in the mainstream theories physicists add new parameters and/or add new mechanism to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. It is a childish game. Since 1997 I never have added new parameter to my theory. You are liar claiming that I changed picture of strong interactions in my book. Over time, I add new paragraphs. At first, there were described the strong interactions in the low-energy regime and it is very easy to prove that it was before I started to discuss with you and that I did not change the picture. You are just big liar. Moreover, the picture of the strong interactions in the high-energy regime HAS NOTHING with the nonsense you wrote in your posts. Just my theory says that the confinement is not in existence! The confinement added physicists to the old picture of the strong interactions to fit the theoretical results to the new experimental data. Professor Barbara Jacak and Dr. Vigdor said as follows: Below is the link to article published in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html Dr. Vigdor said “…..but the quark-gluon plasma does not act the way theorists had predicted” whereas Professor Barbara Jacak, of the State University at Stony Brook, speaking for the team that made the new measurements, said “This is not your father’s quark-gluon plasma”. AlphaNumeric, now all can see how dishonest you are. I proved many times that you are liar who try to swindle others. Whereas particle physics theorists wasted 48 years trying to prove that nucleons are built of the relativistic up and down quarks. They never will prove it or they will add new parameters but I explained that such “physics” is a childish game. AlphaNumeric, “Do not judge others, lest you yourself shall be judged”. All your swindles are in your posts and it will be forever. brucep10-29-12, 09:33 AMAlphaNumeric, it is incredible that you still write the tremendous nonsense and that on this Forum tolerate your dishonest. Now is 2012. They still cannot explain the perihelion precession of Venus whereas within the Everlasting Theory I did it (see page 111, theoretical result is 204.0’’). I calculated the value for Mercury as well. But most important is the fact that you and other mathematicians in physics since 1948 do not understand difference between structure of particles and their interactions. You know, it is already in the curriculum of the secondary school. Now I will try to show you why since 1964 (48 years to 2012) theoretical physicists who are engaged in particle physics cannot calculate the basic physical quantities such as masses and magnetic moments of protons and neutrons. I am doing it because you as usually try to swindle readers. There is structure of an atom i.e. the nucleus composed of nucleons and the allowed states of electrons. There are the electromagnetic interactions of an atom carried by the photons emitted during the transitions of the electrons between the allowed states. There appears the photon spectrum. Do you understand my simple explanation? There is structure of an atom and spectrum associated with interactions. You cannot calculate, for example, mass of an atom from spectrum. Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM. Now about the protons and neutrons The mass spectrum of the quarks and mass spectrum of the mesons follow from the interactions of the baryons! This means that similarly as for atoms, we cannot claim that nucleons consist of the sham up and down quarks. The sham quarks appear when nucleons interact. This is tremendous mistake when someone claims that structure of nucleons is directly associated with the relativistic quarks. So once more, we will never calculate from the properties of the up and down quarks the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons. It is true because such physical quantities are directly associated with structure of nucleons (see pages 16-21 in my book). Within no one theory, which applies only 7 parameters (such number of parameters is in my Everlasting Theory; because the basic physical constants are the parameters as well then in the SM is at least 20 parameters) we can calculate masses and magnetic moments of nucleons with such high accuracy as in my theory (see page 19): 938.2725 MeV 939.5378 MeV +2.79360 -1.91343 We can see that indeed the obtained theoretical results are beautiful. AlphaNumeric, there is something wrong with you. You still do not understand foundations of physics. I derived whole my theory from seven parameters. Their dimensionalities are directly associated with the International System of Units. The interactions are defined the same as in the SM. There are the sources of interactions and carriers of interactions. There is the speed of light and Planck constant. And the running coupling is undimensional. Do you understand that the global picture of the interactions is the same as in the SM and experiments? Do you understand that we can calculate, for example, ratios of physical quantities for different energies? And so on. Frequently in the mainstream theories physicists add new parameters and/or add new mechanism to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. It is a childish game. Since 1997 I never have added new parameter to my theory. You are liar claiming that I changed picture of strong interactions in my book. Over time, I add new paragraphs. At first, there were described the strong interactions in the low-energy regime and it is very easy to prove that it was before I started to discuss with you and that I did not change the picture. You are just big liar. Moreover, the picture of the strong interactions in the high-energy regime HAS NOTHING with the nonsense you wrote in your posts. Just my theory says that the confinement is not in existence! The confinement added physicists to the old picture of the strong interactions to fit the theoretical results to the new experimental data. Professor Barbara Jacak and Dr. Vigdor said as follows: Below is the link to article published in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html Dr. Vigdor said “…..but the quark-gluon plasma does not act the way theorists had predicted” whereas Professor Barbara Jacak, of the State University at Stony Brook, speaking for the team that made the new measurements, said “This is not your father’s quark-gluon plasma”. AlphaNumeric, now all can see how dishonest you are. I proved many times that you are liar who try to swindle others. Whereas particle physics theorists wasted 48 years trying to prove that nucleons are built of the relativistic up and down quarks. They never will prove it or they will add new parameters but I explained that such “physics” is a childish game. AlphaNumeric, “Do not judge others, lest you yourself shall be judged”. All your swindles are in your posts and it will be forever. All orbits naturally precess. That's what GR predicts. JPL calculation Venus = 8.618 +or- .041 arc seconds per century Earth = 8.618 + or - .012 Mars = 1.351 + or - .001 He's judging your bad physics and misstatement of facts. Sylwester Kornowski10-29-12, 10:08 AMAll orbits naturally precess. That's what GR predicts. JPL calculation Venus = 8.618 +or- .041 arc seconds per century Earth = 8.618 + or - .012 Mars = 1.351 + or - .001 He's judging your bad physics and misstatement of facts. I can see that you do not understand what you are reading as well. Observational fact concerning the perihelion precession of Venus is about 204 arc seconds per century. You wrote about the GR correction only! Do you understand the difference? brucep10-29-12, 11:39 AMI can see that you do not understand what you are reading as well. Observational fact concerning the perihelion precession of Venus is about 204 arc seconds per century. You wrote about the GR correction only! Do you understand the difference? So you're saying science doesn't understand what the external perturbations are? Get a clue. AlphaNumeric10-29-12, 01:07 PMAlphaNumeric, it is incredible that you still write the tremendous nonsense and that on this Forum tolerate your dishonest.I'm willing to give further explaination for anything I've said, I have nothing to hide in that regard. Now is 2012. They still cannot explain the perihelion precession of Venus whereas within the Everlasting Theory I did it (see page 111, theoretical result is 204.0ï¿½ï¿½). I calculated the value for Mercury as well.Provide evidence Venus's motion isn't explained accurately by current methods. Do you understand my simple explanation? There is structure of an atom and spectrum associated with interactions. You cannot calculate, for example, mass of an atom from spectrum. Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.Nice strawmanning. This is part of the problem, you don't know what the mainstream actually said because you don't bother to find out properly. This occured particularly so when you used to go around whining about the mainstream's take on asymptotic freedom and confinement. You hadn't bothered (and even if you had I consider you intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway) to find out what those are in the mainstream and thus conflated the two. I had to repeatedly explain the difference to you, at which point you amended your 'everlasting theory'. Funny, shouldn't an everlasting theory already be right? In this case you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says about spectra etc. No one says 'the structure of the atom consists of the photon spectrum'. The structure of an atom or molecule will affect its emission and absorption spectra but that's quite different from what you claim the mainstream says. And it is possible to reverse infer the mass of particles within a molecule from its spectra. It just so happens I've spent much of the last 6 months working on a particular quantum chemistry probem which involves the link between particle masses, molecular structures and their spectra. I got paid to do it and I produced results which outperform what you'll find in the literature by several orders of magnitude. The results are validated by experimental data too. So I'd say I do understand this stuff pretty well, demonstrably so. Unlike you the sum of my scientific accomplishments are not represented by my forum postings. The masses of particles which make up molecules appear in the equations whose solutions are the photon spectra associated to the molecule in question. Given sufficient experimental data for the various emission levels you can deduce the masses of the nuclei and electrons involved. It's not the most precise way, so other methods are used for precise measurements of masses, but it can be done. To illustrate this one needs only to look at the Hydrogen atom. It's energy levels pertain to the Bohr radius, which pertains to the electron's mass and charge. This is something you learn in a first course in quantum mechanics but since you don't know any quantum mechanics you're ignorant of this well known result. Now about the protons and neutrons The mass spectrum of the quarks and mass spectrum of the mesons follow from the interactions of the baryons! This means that similarly as for atoms, we cannot claim that nucleons consist of the sham up and down quarks. The sham quarks appear when nucleons interact. This is tremendous mistake when someone claims that structure of nucleons is directly associated with the relativistic quarks.Deep inelastic scatterings demonstrate the proton and neutron each have 3 localised charges within them. Jet events demonstrate their spin properties and non-zero mass nature. High precision W-W decay processes demonstrate the localised charges have additional types of charge from just electromagnetic, ie the strong force, and that there are 3 different charges in the strong force (ie the three 'colours'). So we can look into the inside of hardons, using things other than nucleon-nucleon processes. Again, a well know result to anyone who has studied the Standard Model, which you haven't. So once more, we will never calculate from the properties of the up and down quarks the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons. It is true because such physical quantities are directly associated with structure of nucleons (see pages 16-21 in my book).Except that non-perturbative calculations using Lattice QCD do allow us to compute such things. Once again you make a blanket statement based on nothing but your ignorance and delusion you're right. We can see that indeed the obtained theoretical results are beautiful.Or pseudo-scientific curve fitting and retroactive 'explanations'. AlphaNumeric, there is something wrong with you. I can see why you would view intellectual honesty as something wrong, its a concept alien to you. Their dimensionalities are directly associated with the International System of Units. The interactions are defined the same as in the SM. There are the sources of interactions and carriers of interactions. There is the speed of light and Planck constant. And the running coupling is undimensional. Do you understand that the global picture of the interactions is the same as in the SM and experiments? Do you understand that we can calculate, for example, ratios of physical quantities for different energies? You still don't get it. Wow you're thick. It doesn't have anything to do with definitions of units, given all physically meaningful quantities are dimensionless, including the strong coupling constant. Here's a superficial explanation of how the strong coupling constant can be computed.... Beams of protons are collided and the debris from them is measured. Clouds of new particles go out in all directions, carrying with them energy and momentum. These are measured. Given the knowledge of the beam energy and momentum going in and the energy and momenta coming out a particle physicist starts calculating, using QCD (which you claim is nonsense), including non-perturbative methods (which you also claim is nonsense in the SM), how protons with the measured incoming momentum and energy might convert into the observed particles coming out of the collisions. More specifically they compute a lot of Feynman diagrams and run lots of computer simulations of quarks from different protons emitting gluons, which then collide and create more quarks and electroweak bosons and leptons etc, which then fly out of the fireball to form quark jets. Given the observed jets and the observed incoming beams the particle physicist can then say "Well since the strong coupling constant alters how gluons and quarks interact my Feynman diagrams and computer simulations can only correctly explain the experiment if the coupling constant is equal to....". If the SM is wrong then all those Feynman diagrams and non-perturbative calculations are wrong. You have repeatedly said you consider them all wrong and 'shams' etc. But if they are all wrong then the physicists calculation to compute the coupling constant is wrong, so the value of the coupling constant is wrong. So if you're right about the SM and QCD and non-perturbative methods used by the community then the implication is the use of them to calculate the strong coupling constant leads to a wrong answer. But you also claim you correctly predict the value of the coupling constant. But you don't think the calculations which lead to such a value in the mainstream community are right. You cannot have it both ways. If all the QCD/quark stuff is nonsense and thus anything calculated from them flawed, including the strong coupling constant value, then your prediction for the strong coupling constant is also wrong since in reality there isn't how the internals of the nucleons are behaving. The only way you can get around this is to work with the raw data, the energies and momenta the detectors measured. Everything else, everything else, relies on the Standard Model to interpret the data to extract other bits of information. Since you don't have access to such data you cannot do any such calculations. It is for this reason all of your work is undermined, you simultaneously denounce the SM as a sham while loudly proclaiming how you can reproduce results from it. I must have explained this to you 10+ times in the past year or so but it just doesn't sink in. The fact you think I was referring to something to do with units shows how clueless you are. You say you've grasped my point but you so obviously haven't. The question then becomes whether you have grasped it but don't want to face up to it or whether you're actually so thick you cannot grasp what is really a simple thing. Perhaps another example? Suppose you wanted to compute the value of G, Newton's constant. How might you do it? You could get a ball, a ruler and a stop watch and then measure its mass and time how long it takes to fall a distance L. The raw data is just a length L, a time T and a mass M. How can we extract a value for G from that? Well you need a model, something which links G to L, T and M. We can use F=ma and F = G\frac{MM_{E}}{r^{2}}. Doing the necessary calculations we can write G in terms of L, T and M. However, if the models are not right then the value of G will not be, even though the raw data is accurate. For example, if we used general relativity we'd get a very similar but slightly different answer (if you were doing this experiment near a black hole event horizon it'd be a huge difference!). Different models process the same data differently and thus give different answers. This is why saying "The SM is nonsense" undermines your claim to have accurately modelled the strong coupling constant, it's computed from data using the SM! If the particle physicist I just mentioned accidently changed the number of quark flavours in his calculations from 6 to 10 (suppose we discovered some more quark types) then the calculations would result in a different value for the strong coupling constant! Everything which isn't directly observable must be inferred using models. Different models predict different amounts from the same data. You denounce the SM while lauding over one of its outputs! This is why your claims are inconsistent, this is why all your assertions and delusions amount to nothing. This is why you'll be sure to achieve nothing until you address this fundamental, fatal problem in your claims. Until such time as you aquire raw collider data and process it through your own work this problem kills your ideas. And so on. Frequently in the mainstream theories physicists add new parameters and/or add new mechanism to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. It is a childish game. Updating our models as we gain new understanding and data is childish? It's the scientific method! Sometimes a model only needs a small adjustment, other times you burn it to the ground. Since 1997 I never have added new parameter to my theory. You are liar claiming that I changed picture of strong interactions in my book. Pictures? I didn't mention any pictures. Ironic of you to call me a liar by lying about me! Rather I had to correct you on your misunderstanding about the difference between deconfinement and asymptotic freedom. You thought them the same when they are different. Given you claim to explain everything with your work it's a bit odd your work didn't already tell you there is a difference, since they are two experimentally distinct phenomena.... Over time, I add new paragraphs. At first, there were described the strong interactions in the low-energy regime and it is very easy to prove that it was before I started to discuss with you and that I did not change the picture. You are just big liar. Moreover, the picture of the strong interactions in the high-energy regime HAS NOTHING with the nonsense you wrote in your posts. Just my theory says that the confinement is not in existence! The confinement added physicists to the old picture of the strong interactions to fit the theoretical results to the new experimental data. Professor Barbara Jacak and Dr. Vigdor said as follows: Below is the link to article published in The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html Dr. Vigdor said ï¿½ï¿½..but the quark-gluon plasma does not act the way theorists had predictedï¿½ whereas Professor Barbara Jacak, of the State University at Stony Brook, speaking for the team that made the new measurements, said ï¿½This is not your fatherï¿½s quark-gluon plasmaï¿½.Confinement wasn't added due to the experiments you are referring it, it was known about long long before them. The article you link to is explaining how the particulars of the deconfinement process wasn't well understood. There's a difference between saying "We predicted this effect but we were slightly out in the accuracy so had to make small modifications to the model" compared to "This effect no one expected and we have had to bolt on an entirely new section to the model". The reality is the former, not the latter as you're implying. QGP physics is difficult to calculate things for so much of the fine detail hasn't yet been worked out. You call me a liar yet you misrepresent anyone you think might help to make your claims look less laughable. You do it in regards to me and in regards to the community at large. If you really want physics to bin the SM and work on your ideas you need to be honest. You aren't going to convince particle physicists if they see you lying about them and their work. It might work to con a few people on forums but it'll get you nowhere in the research community. AlphaNumeric, now all can see how dishonest you are. I proved many times that you are liar who try to swindle others.Project much? AlphaNumeric, ï¿½Do not judge others, lest you yourself shall be judgedï¿½. All your swindles are in your posts and it will be forever.I stand by everything I've said. Your claims are terminal flaws in them and you misrepresent people, including to their face (ie me). You can do nothing but just assert things, all the time avoiding facing up to a fatal problem your work has. Of course it's no skin off my nose if you ignore this problem, you have the right to waste your existence deluding yourself, accomplishing nothing, I (as well as the rest of the research community) will contiue with productive research which can be presented honestly and stands up to scrutiny. I know its incredibly unlikely you'll realise your mistakes, you seem to lack the basic mental capacities for that, but I want to make it obvious to everyone else who is reading how easy it is to put down your claims and how fundamentally flawed your assertions are, all it needs is a reasonable grasp of the scientific method and how experiments are handled. I haven't needed any university level physics knowledge to point out the problems, all that I've needed is knowledge someone whose read a few pop science books will have. Having a decent grasp of scientific procedures, especially the handling of experiment vs theory, is important for someone to be a good scientist and just like every other relevant or useful knowledge of science you don't seem to have any. brucep10-29-12, 04:00 PMI'm willing to give further explaination for anything I've said, I have nothing to hide in that regard. Provide evidence Venus's motion isn't explained accurately by current methods. Nice strawmanning. This is part of the problem, you don't know what the mainstream actually said because you don't bother to find out properly. This occured particularly so when you used to go around whining about the mainstream's take on asymptotic freedom and confinement. You hadn't bothered (and even if you had I consider you intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway) to find out what those are in the mainstream and thus conflated the two. I had to repeatedly explain the difference to you, at which point you amended your 'everlasting theory'. Funny, shouldn't an everlasting theory already be right? In this case you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says about spectra etc. No one says 'the structure of the atom consists of the photon spectrum'. The structure of an atom or molecule will affect its emission and absorption spectra but that's quite different from what you claim the mainstream says. And it is possible to reverse infer the mass of particles within a molecule from its spectra. It just so happens I've spent much of the last 6 months working on a particular quantum chemistry probem which involves the link between particle masses, molecular structures and their spectra. I got paid to do it and I produced results which outperform what you'll find in the literature by several orders of magnitude. The results are validated by experimental data too. So I'd say I do understand this stuff pretty well, demonstrably so. Unlike you the sum of my scientific accomplishments are not represented by my forum postings. The masses of particles which make up molecules appear in the equations whose solutions are the photon spectra associated to the molecule in question. Given sufficient experimental data for the various emission levels you can deduce the masses of the nuclei and electrons involved. It's not the most precise way, so other methods are used for precise measurements of masses, but it can be done. To illustrate this one needs only to look at the Hydrogen atom. It's energy levels pertain to the Bohr radius, which pertains to the electron's mass and charge. This is something you learn in a first course in quantum mechanics but since you don't know any quantum mechanics you're ignorant of this well known result. Deep inelastic scatterings demonstrate the proton and neutron each have 3 localised charges within them. Jet events demonstrate their spin properties and non-zero mass nature. High precision W-W decay processes demonstrate the localised charges have additional types of charge from just electromagnetic, ie the strong force, and that there are 3 different charges in the strong force (ie the three 'colours'). So we can look into the inside of hardons, using things other than nucleon-nucleon processes. Again, a well know result to anyone who has studied the Standard Model, which you haven't. Except that non-perturbative calculations using Lattice QCD do allow us to compute such things. Once again you make a blanket statement based on nothing but your ignorance and delusion you're right. Or pseudo-scientific curve fitting and retroactive 'explanations'. I can see why you would view intellectual honesty as something wrong, its a concept alien to you. You still don't get it. Wow you're thick. It doesn't have anything to do with definitions of units, given all physically meaningful quantities are dimensionless, including the strong coupling constant. Here's a superficial explanation of how the strong coupling constant can be computed.... Beams of protons are collided and the debris from them is measured. Clouds of new particles go out in all directions, carrying with them energy and momentum. These are measured. Given the knowledge of the beam energy and momentum going in and the energy and momenta coming out a particle physicist starts calculating, using QCD (which you claim is nonsense), including non-perturbative methods (which you also claim is nonsense in the SM), how protons with the measured incoming momentum and energy might convert into the observed particles coming out of the collisions. More specifically they compute a lot of Feynman diagrams and run lots of computer simulations of quarks from different protons emitting gluons, which then collide and create more quarks and electroweak bosons and leptons etc, which then fly out of the fireball to form quark jets. Given the observed jets and the observed incoming beams the particle physicist can then say "Well since the strong coupling constant alters how gluons and quarks interact my Feynman diagrams and computer simulations can only correctly explain the experiment if the coupling constant is equal to....". If the SM is wrong then all those Feynman diagrams and non-perturbative calculations are wrong. You have repeatedly said you consider them all wrong and 'shams' etc. But if they are all wrong then the physicists calculation to compute the coupling constant is wrong, so the value of the coupling constant is wrong. So if you're right about the SM and QCD and non-perturbative methods used by the community then the implication is the use of them to calculate the strong coupling constant leads to a wrong answer. But you also claim you correctly predict the value of the coupling constant. But you don't think the calculations which lead to such a value in the mainstream community are right. You cannot have it both ways. If all the QCD/quark stuff is nonsense and thus anything calculated from them flawed, including the strong coupling constant value, then your prediction for the strong coupling constant is also wrong since in reality there isn't how the internals of the nucleons are behaving. The only way you can get around this is to work with the raw data, the energies and momenta the detectors measured. Everything else, everything else, relies on the Standard Model to interpret the data to extract other bits of information. Since you don't have access to such data you cannot do any such calculations. It is for this reason all of your work is undermined, you simultaneously denounce the SM as a sham while loudly proclaiming how you can reproduce results from it. I must have explained this to you 10+ times in the past year or so but it just doesn't sink in. The fact you think I was referring to something to do with units shows how clueless you are. You say you've grasped my point but you so obviously haven't. The question then becomes whether you have grasped it but don't want to face up to it or whether you're actually so thick you cannot grasp what is really a simple thing. Perhaps another example? Suppose you wanted to compute the value of G, Newton's constant. How might you do it? You could get a ball, a ruler and a stop watch and then measure its mass and time how long it takes to fall a distance L. The raw data is just a length L, a time T and a mass M. How can we extract a value for G from that? Well you need a model, something which links G to L, T and M. We can use F=ma and F = G\frac{MM_{E}}{r^{2}}. Doing the necessary calculations we can write G in terms of L, T and M. However, if the models are not right then the value of G will not be, even though the raw data is accurate. For example, if we used general relativity we'd get a very similar but slightly different answer (if you were doing this experiment near a black hole event horizon it'd be a huge difference!). Different models process the same data differently and thus give different answers. This is why saying "The SM is nonsense" undermines your claim to have accurately modelled the strong coupling constant, it's computed from data using the SM! If the particle physicist I just mentioned accidently changed the number of quark flavours in his calculations from 6 to 10 (suppose we discovered some more quark types) then the calculations would result in a different value for the strong coupling constant! Everything which isn't directly observable must be inferred using models. Different models predict different amounts from the same data. You denounce the SM while lauding over one of its outputs! This is why your claims are inconsistent, this is why all your assertions and delusions amount to nothing. This is why you'll be sure to achieve nothing until you address this fundamental, fatal problem in your claims. Until such time as you aquire raw collider data and process it through your own work this problem kills your ideas. Updating our models as we gain new understanding and data is childish? It's the scientific method! Sometimes a model only needs a small adjustment, other times you burn it to the ground. Pictures? I didn't mention any pictures. Ironic of you to call me a liar by lying about me! Rather I had to correct you on your misunderstanding about the difference between deconfinement and asymptotic freedom. You thought them the same when they are different. Given you claim to explain everything with your work it's a bit odd your work didn't already tell you there is a difference, since they are two experimentally distinct phenomena.... Confinement wasn't added due to the experiments you are referring it, it was known about long long before them. The article you link to is explaining how the particulars of the deconfinement process wasn't well understood. There's a difference between saying "We predicted this effect but we were slightly out in the accuracy so had to make small modifications to the model" compared to "This effect no one expected and we have had to bolt on an entirely new section to the model". The reality is the former, not the latter as you're implying. QGP physics is difficult to calculate things for so much of the fine detail hasn't yet been worked out. You call me a liar yet you misrepresent anyone you think might help to make your claims look less laughable. You do it in regards to me and in regards to the community at large. If you really want physics to bin the SM and work on your ideas you need to be honest. You aren't going to convince particle physicists if they see you lying about them and their work. It might work to con a few people on forums but it'll get you nowhere in the research community. Project much? I stand by everything I've said. Your claims are terminal flaws in them and you misrepresent people, including to their face (ie me). You can do nothing but just assert things, all the time avoiding facing up to a fatal problem your work has. Of course it's no skin off my nose if you ignore this problem, you have the right to waste your existence deluding yourself, accomplishing nothing, I (as well as the rest of the research community) will contiue with productive research which can be presented honestly and stands up to scrutiny. I know its incredibly unlikely you'll realise your mistakes, you seem to lack the basic mental capacities for that, but I want to make it obvious to everyone else who is reading how easy it is to put down your claims and how fundamentally flawed your assertions are, all it needs is a reasonable grasp of the scientific method and how experiments are handled. I haven't needed any university level physics knowledge to point out the problems, all that I've needed is knowledge someone whose read a few pop science books will have. Having a decent grasp of scientific procedures, especially the handling of experiment vs theory, is important for someone to be a good scientist and just like every other relevant or useful knowledge of science you don't seem to have any. Very informative for me. Understanding the correlation between theory and experiment is critical for gathering useful scientific knowledge. For me, interested amateur, experimental results help when learning theory. Denying this profound correlation is what internet cranks do. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 05:49 AMSo you're saying science doesn't understand what the external perturbations are? Get a clue. Provide evidence Venus's motion isn't explained accurately by current methods. The fact is that the Newtonian theory is sensitive to small perturbations which are important when we calculate the perihelion precession for Venus (only for Venus). Such calculations are very difficult. In perturbative theories is free choice as well so manipulations are possible. My theory is the non-perturbative theory (very simple) and leads to the exact result. For example, such non-perturbative Everlasting Theory within the same model leads to the theoretical results for magnetic moments of electron and muon respectively 1.0011596521735 (page 23, formula (69)) and 1.001165921508 (page 50, formula (142)). For example, there is no proof that the perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics confines at low energy so probably there will appear new parameters or/and new mechanisms. Just it will be a childish game to fit the theoretical results to experimental data. Can you see that the modifications must concern the FOUNDATIONS of the Standard Model? We cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks because there is big mistake in the mainstream QCD. Or, scientists will admit that my Everlasting Theory which shows the differences between structure of particles and their interactions is correct. Just origin of the perihelion precession of Mercury and Venus is associated with the entanglement and evolution of the solar system (see my book). Total perihelion precession is the sum of the result obtained within the Newtonian theory and the GR correction. When we neglect the very small perturbations, we obtain http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node115.html (it concerns the Newtonian theory) For Mercury is: 532 (Newton) + 43 (Einstein) = 575 arc seconds per century. For Venus is: 1075 (Newton) + 8.62 (Einstein) ≈ 1084 arc seconds per century whereas the observed precession is about 204 arc seconds per century and such value I obtained within my non-perturbative theory. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 06:52 AMThis is part of the problem, you don't know what the mainstream actually said because you don't bother to find out properly. This occured particularly so when you used to go around whining about the mainstream's take on asymptotic freedom and confinement. You hadn't bothered (and even if you had I consider you intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway) to find out what those are in the mainstream and thus conflated the two. I had to repeatedly explain the difference to you, at which point you amended your 'everlasting theory'. Funny, shouldn't an everlasting theory already be right? We have discussed the difference between the confinement and asymptotic freedom many times but you still write the untrue. I never wrote that confinement appeared in 2010. About the confinement and asymptotic freedom in the mainstream theory and in my theory I wrote as follows. Confinement Scientists claim that the observed liquid-like substance in the very energetic collisions of ions it is result of the confinement/thickening of the quarks and the tricolour gluons. I claim that it is due to the atom-like structure of baryons. The observed liquid-like plasma consists of the cores of baryons in which are produced the emitted particles. Moreover, due to the atom-like structure of baryons range of the strong field is maximum 2.93 fm. In the strong fields PHOTONS (the 1 type) BEHAVE AS GLUONS (the 8 types)! In my book it is widely described. There is not in existence the confinement described in the QCD. Asymptotic freedom Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away. I claim that all phenomena seen in the Universe contradict such behaviour of point objects. I claim that the asymptotic freedom follows from the fact that the carriers of the strong interactions, due to the atom-like structure of baryons and the Uncertainty Principle, do not behave according to the Einstein formula for the relativistic mass. Inside the strong fields, when energy increases then mass of the carriers of the strong interactions DECREASES. It is the reason why there appears the asymptotic freedom. In high-energy regime there appears the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions 0.1139. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 07:17 AMIn this case you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says about spectra etc. No one says 'the structure of the atom consists of the photon spectrum'. AlphaNumeric, it is very difficult to discuss with you because you indeed do not understand what you are reading. I never wrote that someone says that the structure of atom consists of its spectrum. I tried to show that the QCD needs revision because the mass spectrum of quarks is some analog to the photon spectrum whereas the QCD says nothing about structure of baryons i.e. about some analog to the structure of atoms (nucleus + electron(s) + allowed state(s) of the electron(s)). Moreover, the authors of the QCD claim that the non-interacting nucleons consist of the up and down quarks! I wrote that by SOME ANALOGY IT LOOKS AS IF the atoms consisted only of the photons which appear in their photon spectrum. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 07:28 AMTo illustrate this one needs only to look at the Hydrogen atom. It's energy levels pertain to the Bohr radius, which pertains to the electron's mass and charge. This is something you learn in a first course in quantum mechanics but since you don't know any quantum mechanics you're ignorant of this well known result. AlphaNumeric, it is awful that you, PhD, do not understand what you are reading. I wrote about mass of atom, not of electron! Do you claim that photon spectrum of an atom leads to the masses of proton and neutron? It is the example how you change my words to be right. Awful! Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 07:53 AMDeep inelastic scatterings demonstrate the proton and neutron each have 3 localised charges within them. Jet events demonstrate their spin properties and non-zero mass nature. High precision W-W decay processes demonstrate the localised charges have additional types of charge from just electromagnetic, ie the strong force, and that there are 3 different charges in the strong force (ie the three 'colours'). So we can look into the inside of hardons, using things other than nucleon-nucleon processes. Again, a well know result to anyone who has studied the Standard Model, which you haven't. You write about interactions whereas I write about STRUCTURES OF PARTICLES and their interactions. For example, electric charge of the core of baryons and two electric charges of one created particle-antiparticle pair inside strong field give the 3 localized charges as well. Hundreds of my theoretical results (the 7 parameters only) are consistent with experimental data as well. But in my theory is at least 3 times less the parameters than in the SM. So which theory is better? Inside the strong fields can be produced the kaons as well and they can decay already inside the strong fields to TWO or THREE pions. The energetic pions produce the jets. This means that we should observe the two- and three-jets events. The decaying neutral pions can produce two jets, and so on. Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 08:29 AMEverything which isn't directly observable must be inferred using models. Different models predict different amounts from the same data. ……Doing the necessary calculations we can write G in terms of L, T and M….. It is untrue. It is true when in both models is the same number of parameters!!!!! How many times I must write the obvious truth? In my theory is at least 3 times less the parameters than in the SM. To fit the theoretical results, obtained within the SM, to experimental data we will must add next and next parameters because, for example, we do not know the exact masses of the up and down quarks. BTW, why gravitational constant is TODAY constant? My theory shows that the gravitational constant G depends on properties of neutrinos and inertial mass density of the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions (see formulae (11) and (12) on page 15). Value of the G changes on distances smaller than about 10^-32 m (see pages 31 and 32 in my book). The gravitational properties of the neutrinos and density of the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions changed only at the beginning of the era of inflation when the spacetime responsible for the gravitational interactions had expanded. Due to the tremendous pressure of the spacetime associated directly with the G (about 10^180 Pa) and the fact that the black holes in our Universe today should consist of smaller neutron black holes which masses are quantized, the changes in inertial mass density of the spacetime should be non-measurable. The calculated G within the Everlasting Theory is (IS): 6.6740007•10^-11. This result overlaps with the experimental data (CODATA 2010). There is following interval: (6.67304•10^-11, 6.67464•10^-11). Sylwester Kornowski10-30-12, 08:54 AMI haven't needed any university level physics knowledge to point out the problems, all that I've needed is knowledge someone whose read a few pop science books will have. Sorry, AlphaNumeric, that I divided your very, very long post into the parts. I did it because I think that now the picture is more perspicuous. My basic advice is as follows. There are the structures of particles and their interactions. In the QCD authors neglected the structure of baryons in the free state of them. They mixed up structures with interactions. Free nucleons do not consist of the up and down quarks. This is the reason why we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks (nature does not need powerful computers to know how it should behaves; nature is simple on the lowest levels). This is the reason as well why the QCD does not confine in the very low-energy regime. Only bigoted opponent cannot see that I am right. You know, the 48 years of the bigotry. Enough! origin10-30-12, 09:55 AMOnly bigoted opponent cannot see that I am right. There is the other obvious option that you should consider, which is that you are wrong. brucep10-30-12, 09:39 PMSorry, AlphaNumeric, that I divided your very, very long post into the parts. I did it because I think that now the picture is more perspicuous. My basic advice is as follows. There are the structures of particles and their interactions. In the QCD authors neglected the structure of baryons in the free state of them. They mixed up structures with interactions. Free nucleons do not consist of the up and down quarks. This is the reason why we cannot calculate the exact masses of the up and down quarks (nature does not need powerful computers to know how it should behaves; nature is simple on the lowest levels). This is the reason as well why the QCD does not confine in the very low-energy regime. Only bigoted opponent cannot see that I am right. You know, the 48 years of the bigotry. Enough! Calling intelligent folks bigoted because they don't agree with your 'really bad irrelevant science' is pretty stupid. Since nobody has EVER agreed with your nonsense bs then everybody is a bigot other than you. What a dumb crank you are. brucep10-30-12, 11:31 PMThe fact is that the Newtonian theory is sensitive to small perturbations which are important when we calculate the perihelion precession for Venus (only for Venus). Such calculations are very difficult. In perturbative theories is free choice as well so manipulations are possible. My theory is the non-perturbative theory (very simple) and leads to the exact result. For example, such non-perturbative Everlasting Theory within the same model leads to the theoretical results for magnetic moments of electron and muon respectively 1.0011596521735 (page 23, formula (69)) and 1.001165921508 (page 50, formula (142)). For example, there is no proof that the perturbative Quantum Chromodynamics confines at low energy so probably there will appear new parameters or/and new mechanisms. Just it will be a childish game to fit the theoretical results to experimental data. Can you see that the modifications must concern the FOUNDATIONS of the Standard Model? We cannot calculate the masses of the up and down quarks because there is big mistake in the mainstream QCD. Or, scientists will admit that my Everlasting Theory which shows the differences between structure of particles and their interactions is correct. Just origin of the perihelion precession of Mercury and Venus is associated with the entanglement and evolution of the solar system (see my book). Total perihelion precession is the sum of the result obtained within the Newtonian theory and the GR correction. When we neglect the very small perturbations, we obtain http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node115.html (it concerns the Newtonian theory) For Mercury is: 532 (Newton) + 43 (Einstein) = 575 arc seconds per century. For Venus is: 1075 (Newton) + 8.62 (Einstein) ≈ 1084 arc seconds per century whereas the observed precession is about 204 arc seconds per century and such value I obtained within my non-perturbative theory. I'm really surprised you'd link a crackpot theory. Not really a crackpot theory, just a cheesy mathematical model trying to make a correlation between the models results and observation. Rather poorly I might add. The Newton prediction is based on the cheesy model. The model has 'to big' an error bar to allow for accurately determining the natural rate of precession of each planet. It's the observed rate of precession minus the measured total contribution from external perturbations = the natural rate of precession predicted by GR. The only theoretical prediction is GR. You can derive the natural precession rate of Einstein orbits. All Einstein orbits naturally precess. Start with the Schwarzschild metric [geometric units] setting theta at 0. dTau^2 = (1-2M/r)dt^2 - dr^2/(1-2M/r) - r^2(dphi)^2 Substituting constants of geodesic motion E/m and L/m for dt and dphi dt = [(E/m)/(1-2M/r)]dTau dphi = [(L/m)/r^2]dTau The solution relates squared values for radial motion (dr/dTau)^2, energy per unit mass (E/m)^2, and the effective potential per unit mass (V/m)^2 = (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2]). (dr/dTau)^2 = +/- (E/m)^2 - (1-2M/r)(1+[(L/m)^2/r^2]) Taking some license for the weak field and multiplying through by 1/2 after multiplying out the squared effective potential 1/2(dr/dTau)^2 = 1/2(E/m)^2 - [1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3] setting (V/m)^2 = U/m U/m = 1/2 - M/r + (L/m)^2/2r^2 - M(L/m)^2/r^3 1st derivative d(U/m)/dr = M/r^2 - (L/m)^2/r^3 + 3M(L/m)^2/r^4 2nd derivative d'2(U/m)/dr'2 = rate of radial oscillation = w^2_r w^2_r = M(r-6M)/r^3(r-3M) Without writing down details the rate of angular velocity becomes w^2_phi ~ (dphi/dTau)^2 = M/r^2(r-3M) Both are really close in the weak field. We could approximate a large value for r and we would have Newton's result M/r^3 for both radial rate of oscillation and rate of angular velocity but we would end up with the wrong answer that GR orbits and Newton orbits are the same. So w^2_phi - w^2_r = 6M^2/r^3(r-3M) This is the difference so we can find a factor * M/r^3 which closely approximates 6M^2/r^3(r-3M) That factor is 6M/r (6M/r)(M/r^3) = 6M^2/r^4 The last step is further license for the weak field taking the root of the factor and doing the approximation (6M/r)^1/2 ~ 1/2(6M/r) = 3M/r So a very close approximation for the rate of orbital precession, in the weak field [our solar system] is 3M/r. You can plug in numbers and get an answer that matches observation. 3M_Sun = 4431m r_mean Mercury = 5.8x10^10 meters 415.1539069 times Mercury orbits the Sun in 100 Earth years 360 degrees per year 3600 arcseconds per degree etc... Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 03:40 AMThe perihelion precession of Mercury is 574.10±0.65 arc seconds per century! The Mercurian relativistic perihelion ADVANCE EXCESS (the GR) is 42.98 arc seconds per century, and so on. I see that I should not discuss with dunces. I see that I should not discuss with people who can write only a ble, ble, ble …. as well. Why many posters on this Forum do not understand that scientific arguments are most important? All I have written follows from my theory. It is scientific theory because there are the initial conditions (the 7 parameters only), there are the derivations of a few hundred basic physical quantities and they are consistent or very, very close to experimental data. brucep10-31-12, 04:15 AMThe perihelion precession of Mercury is 574.10±0.65 arc seconds per century! The Mercurian relativistic perihelion ADVANCE EXCESS (the GR) is 42.98 arc seconds per century, and so on. I see that I should not discuss with dunces. I see that I should not discuss with people who can write only a ble, ble, ble …. as well. Why many posters on this Forum do not understand that scientific arguments are most important? All I have written follows from my theory. It is scientific theory because there are the initial conditions (the 7 parameters only), there are the derivations of a few hundred basic physical quantities and they are consistent or very, very close to experimental data. I revised my last post after reading about the cheesy predictive model you linked. Go read it. Since you think we're all dunce and bigots why don't you just move on to make friends with another set of bigoted dunces. They make an excuse for the huge Venus error in their model. Nobody who needs to make accurate measurements will use that cheesy model. How many things does your theory predict that exceed the local coordinate speed of light? AlphaNumeric10-31-12, 04:32 AMThanks Brucep. Just to check, you understood my explanation about how the coupling constant is extracted from experimental data using the SM, right? I want to make sure so that I can be confident the reason Sylwester doesn't get it is because of his problems, rather than me not explaining it well enough. I give another explanation below, since Sylwester didn't get it again. Total perihelion precession is the sum of the result obtained within the Newtonian theory and the GR correction. When we neglect the very small perturbations, we obtain http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/336k/Newton/node115.html (it concerns the Newtonian theory) For Mercury is: 532 (Newton) + 43 (Einstein) = 575 arc seconds per century. For Venus is: 1075 (Newton) + 8.62 (Einstein) â‰ˆ 1084 arc seconds per century whereas the observed precession is about 204 arc seconds per century and such value I obtained within my non-perturbative theory. http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176 We have discussed the difference between the confinement and asymptotic freedom many times but you still write the untrue.And yet you still don't understand them. I never wrote that confinement appeared in 2010. About the confinement and asymptotic freedom in the mainstream theory and in my theory I wrote as follows. Confinement Scientists claim that the observed liquid-like substance in the very energetic collisions of ions it is result of the confinement/thickening of the quarks and the tricolour gluons. I claim that it is due to the atom-like structure of baryons. The observed liquid-like plasma consists of the cores of baryons in which are produced the emitted particles. Moreover, due to the atom-like structure of baryons range of the strong field is maximum 2.93 fm. In the strong fields PHOTONS (the 1 type) BEHAVE AS GLUONS (the 8 types)! In my book it is widely described. There is not in existence the confinement described in the QCD. Asymptotic freedom Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away. I claim that all phenomena seen in the Universe contradict such behaviour of point objects. I claim that the asymptotic freedom follows from the fact that the carriers of the strong interactions, due to the atom-like structure of baryons and the Uncertainty Principle, do not behave according to the Einstein formula for the relativistic mass. Inside the strong fields, when energy increases then mass of the carriers of the strong interactions DECREASES. It is the reason why there appears the asymptotic freedom. In high-energy regime there appears the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions 0.1139. You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement. Confinement is the observed fact we do not see free colour charges, unlike electromagnetic charges such as an isolated electron or ions. Confinement is related to how whenever we try to pull apart some bound state of strong charged objects, such as a proton into its 3 quark components, it requires so much energy that new quarks are formed and once again collect together to create something which is colour-neutral. It's this which causes 2 quarks being pulled apart to be connected by a 'flux tube' of gluons. The flux tube's internal energy grows linearly with the separation distance. Eventually it snaps and the potential energy is dumped into making more quarks to maintain the colour neutrality of the bound states. That is confinement, not the asymptotic freedom you said. Asymptotic freedom is about energy scales and coupling runnings. In things like Newtonian gravity the force between 2 objects is dependent upon their charges (ie mass in this case) and the distance between them. In quantum field theory there's an additional consideration which is the energies the particles have. Consider 2 charged particles (quark and quark or electron and electron etc) some set distance apart. The strength with which they will interact depends not just on their charges and distance but also in how fast they are moving relative to one another. In the case of the electromagnetic force two electrons at rest with respect to one another will interact less than two electrons at the same distance apart but moving very quickly. This is because the EM force has a running coupling which goes up as the energy scale increases (QED contains a Landau pole). For the strong force it is the other way around, two fast moving quarks interact less than 2 stationary ones. As you make them move faster and faster the coupling goes down and down and eventually tends to zero. That is asymptotic freedom, the quarks are free (ie don't interact) as the momenta goes to infinity. The fact, which you've demonstrated again, you don't even know what the phenomena in question are shows you cannot possibly be correctly explaining them, since you don't know what you're trying to explain! AlphaNumeric, it is very difficult to discuss with you because you indeed do not understand what you are reading. I never wrote that someone says that the structure of atom consists of its spectrum.You loudly complained about it, saying "Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.", clearly implying that's what the mainstream supposedly says. It's not my fault you cannot explain yourself clearly. I tried to show that the QCD needs revision because the mass spectrum of quarks is some analog to the photon spectrum whereas the QCD says nothing about structure of baryons i.e. about some analog to the structure of atoms (nucleus + electron(s) + allowed state(s) of the electron(s)). QCD does allow you to talk about the structure of baryons. In fact explaining the mass/spin structure of baryons is what lead to QCD. Look up things like 'The Eight-fold way'. Using group theory it's possible to construct representations of the SU(3) gauge group associated to the strong force which explain the spin/mass multiplets of families of baryons! Moreover, the authors of the QCD claim that the non-interacting nucleons consist of the up and down quarks! I wrote that by SOME ANALOGY IT LOOKS AS IF the atoms consisted only of the photons which appear in their photon spectrum. The problem isn't with what the mainstream says, it's what you understand it (or rather don't understand it) to say. You clearly have no knowledge of the mathematical workings so at best all your knowledge is superficial wordy simplifications others have provided for you but as I just demonstrated, even that you don't understand. You're tilting at windmills, complaining about things which are actually an artifact of your ignorance. AlphaNumeric, it is awful that you, PhD, do not understand what you are reading. I wrote about mass of atom, not of electron! Do you claim that photon spectrum of an atom leads to the masses of proton and neutron? It is the example how you change my words to be right. Awful! And you didn't read what I said or bother to go find anything out about it. The Hydrogen example was a specific examine of a more general concept which I'd just explained. Obviously it passed you by so I'll explain it again. If you want to work out the spectra of molecules then in quantum mechanics it is done by solving the Schrodinger equation eigenvalue problem for the molecule. The Schrodinger equation includes terms which involve particle masses and charges and interactions. Therefore the result of solving the equation is dependent upon the values of the masses of the particles involved. In quantum chemistry the computation of something like the spectrum of Carbon Dioxide involves putting in the masses of the electrons, the carbon nucleus and the oxygen nuclei. By measuring the real spectrum of the molecule it is then possible to work out the masses of the electrons and nuclei. It isn't done that way because there's more precise methods but it is still possible. I gave the Hydrogen example because it's the example everyone learns in university and it has analytic answers which are clearly dependent upon the mass of the electron and the charges of the proton and electron, illustrating how you could measure Hydrogen spectra and then work out properties of the electron from it. The proton isn't involved in that case due to translation invariance but something like the Hydrogen molecule definitely involves them. The H_{2}^{+} ion is one of the most studied ions in all of quantum chemistry. But you wouldn't know any of this since you haven't ever done a quantum mechanics course, you haven't read any books on it and your mathematical capabilities are so bad even if you picked up a book on this stuff you couldn't understand it. You write about interactions whereas I write about STRUCTURES OF PARTICLES and their interactions. For example, electric charge of the core of baryons and two electric charges of one created particle-antiparticle pair inside strong field give the 3 localized charges as well. Interactions between particles is how we explore their properties. The interactions between high energy electron beams and nucleons is what allowed us to experimentally demonstrate the nucleons are made up of smaller things, we deduced their structure. This isn't even a difficult concept to grasp, I don't see why you're struggling. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense? Hundreds of my theoretical results (the 7 parameters only) are consistent with experimental data as well. But in my theory is at least 3 times less the parameters than in the SM. So which theory is better?Considering your work is internally inconsistent and, by your own admittance(!), contradicted by experiments the answer is the SM. It is untrue. It is true when in both models is the same number of parameters!!!!!No, it is true. Given the same data two different models will, almost certainly, output different results. For example, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory predict different values for things like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The latter predicts g=2 exactly. The latter corrects this with effects which involve relativity, as quantum mechanics is non-relativistic while quantum field theory is relativistic. Hell, you give an example yourself. You claim the strong coupling constant doesn't flow to 0. The asymptotic freedom calculations (computing the beta function) are done using QCD, so it is QCD which predicts that eventually \alpha \to 0. You claim such calculations are nonsense. But it's the same model, the same types of Feynman diagrams, the same perturbative construct, which is used to convert accelerator data, which only measures energies and momenta, into a value for \alpha. Colliders measure lots and lots of (\mathbf{x}_{j},\mathbf{p}_{j}) data sets, ie the position of a particle at some point in time and its momentum. This can then be converted into energy, charge and mass data using electromagnetics and relativity. Once you have energy, mass and momentum data you use those values to do lots and lots of Feynman diagrams, lots of perturbative (and some non-perturbative on a computer) calculations and they tell you what the relationship between the particles going in and the particles coming out are, according to the Standard Model. You then find what value of \alpha makes the predictions match experiment and there's your 'experimentally measured coupling constant value'. It's all thought the eyes of the Standard Model. If no value makes the calculations match experiment then the model is wrong. That's the scientific method. Now you claim all those calculation methods are nonsense, that they lead to wrong asymptotic freedom predictions. But then you claim you can accurately predict the coupling constant value. But that value, the value you get in data sheets published by places like CERN, is computed using those same calculations you're rubbishing! It's a fundamental inconsistency in your entire approach. I gave another example involving G, which also seems to have gone over your head. What does it mean when some paper says "The experimental value of G is ...."? Do we measure G directly? No, we don't. Instead we measure the movement and behaviour of some gravitational system and then use a model, Newtonian or GR, to convert that data into a value for G. For example, suppose you have 2 spheres of mass M and m. You place them in empty space, a distance 2L apart, and hold them still. You then simultaneously release them and they'll begin to accelerate towards one another due to gravity. You can time how long they take to collide, call it time T. Where's the value of G in all of that? How do you measure it directly? You don't. Instead you say "I have measured the masses, the distance and the time involved and now I'll put them into some gravitational model I have". Since you obviously don't understand how I'll explain it with a specific example.... Let's say m=M. By symmetry we know the masses collide at the centre point from their initial starting position. So initially let's place mass 1 at x = -L and mass 2 at x=+L. By symmetry and Newton's 3rd law each mass feels the equal and opposite force of the other so let's look at the mass which starts at x=L. It experiences a force F = -G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{D^{2}} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{(2x)^{2}} with x=L initially. That is where G comes in, we have assumed a model for gravity, relating mass, distance and force. Now we use another model to relate force to acceleration, F = ma = m\ddot{x}. So now we combine those two models and have m\ddot{x} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{4x^{2}} and so \ddot{x} = -\frac{Gm}{4x^{2}}. This is a second order differential equation with initial conditions x(0) = L and \dot{x}(0) = 0. We know L and m so we could put them into our equation. Let's say m=4 and L=1 so we have \ddot{x} = -\frac{G}{x^{2}} with x(0)=1. The only unknown is G and we've yet to use T. Solving this equation gives x(t) and we want the t where x(t)=0, call it t*. Clearly this will depend on the value of G. Well since G is an overall scaling factor we can explicitly work out the G dependency. It involves a change of variables t = \sqrt{G}\tau, which gives us x'' = -\frac{1}{x^{2}} with x(0)=1 and x'(0)=0 again, solve numerically and then we rescale back at the end. I'm in no doubt you don't understand how to do this but suffice to say the answer is t* = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}. But we measured t* in the experiment, its T. Therefore we have the equation T = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}. We know T so we can now get a value for G. That is how you extract things like coupling values from experiment. You don't measure them directly, you infer them from actually observable things like time and distance and then use a model to convert the 'raw data' into the coupling value. In this example it's the value of G but the concept applies to quantum couplings too. The values of the fine structure constant or the strong coupling constant are not directly measured, they are extracted from directly measurable things using a model. In the case of the strong coupling constant that model is the Standard Model, particularly QCD. To measure Planck's constant high precision current flows are measured through superconductors using the Josephson effect for example. Clearly if the model is changed then the extracted value of the coupling constant will change. Adding more quarks to the SM will alter it. Saying F=2ma in Newtonian mechanics would alter the calculation I did above, resulting in a different prediction for the value of G. This is why it's necessary to do many different types of experiment, so you use other means to compute the coupling constant and hopefully they all overlap, giving you confidence you're on the right track. If the models used to extract the coupling value from raw data are called into question then you have to go back to the raw data. You say QCD is nonsense, that the quark model is a 'sham'. So then you disagree with the models, the calculations, the quark processes, which are used to convert particle scattering data in an accelerator into things like the strong coupling constant. Therefore saying you can predict it to a high precision is logically inconsistent, since the value you're working with is computed using QCD. If you denounce QCD and the SM then you can only say "I can accurately describe/explain baryon physics" if you're applying your ideas to the raw data, everything else is 'tainted' because the Standard Model has been used to convert the raw data into other values. I've explained this to you many times, over the space of perhaps 2 years. I've given you example after example. This is not a difficult concept to grasp yet you don't seem to grasp it. You think I'm talking about units, about the definition of lengths etc, but I am not. That only shows you have a very poor grasp of the basic procedure of experimental science. You've shown time and again you don't bother to check what scientists say, you just put words in our mouths. You've shown time and again you're utterly ignorant of what particle physics involves. That isn't just the in-depth calculations, though it is blatantly obvious you cannot do any of the mathematics involved in things like relativity or quantum field theory (despite how you used to claim you do know QFT), it's the conceptual procedures. A good scientist needs to know the assumptions, procedures and models used in obtaining and processing experimental data, even if they themselves do not do experiments. You have shown you not only don't know but you don't try to find out even when such shortcomings on your part are pointed out. Repeatedly. My basic advice is as follows. There are the structures of particles and their interactions. In the QCD authors neglected the structure of baryons in the free state of them. They mixed up structures with interactions.You don't know what particle physicists say, you don't know their/our work and you have shown you have no problem completely misrepresenting them/us. This is the reason as well why the QCD does not confine in the very low-energy regimeIt does confine at low energies. Low energies are the usual state of nucleons, which show confinement. What you mean is high energy and high density. In high energy/high density systems colour locking breaks down and you get a quark-gluon plasma. Besides, the weakening of the coupling constant happens at high energy. Another example of how you don't grasp this stuff, even after I've explained it to you many many times over years. Only bigoted opponent cannot see that I am right. You know, the 48 years of the bigotry. Enough! You yourself admit you predict things contradicting experimental bounds! There's no bigotry there, you're clearly, demonstrably wrong. And as I've just done, there's plenty of justification for dismissing your work as nonsense. It isn't like I just post a one line post saying "Wrong! You're an idiot!", I explain at great length why you're mistaken. I've got nothing to hide about my opinion of your claims, I can justify all of what I've said. The fact you've spent 48 years doing this nonsense is crazy. So much time and you understand so little. You've squandered those 48 years, all because you cannot accept any kind of correction. Farsight and a few others here should take a look at you, you're a case study in crankdom. Maybe they'll then realise they need to be more realistic, lest they end up like you. brucep10-31-12, 04:38 AMThanks Brucep. Just to check, you understood my explanation about how the coupling constant is extracted from experimental data using the SM, right? I want to make sure so that I can be confident the reason Sylwester doesn't get it is because of his problems, rather than me not explaining it well enough. I give another explanation below, since Sylwester didn't get it again. http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176 And yet you still don't understand them. You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement. Confinement is the observed fact we do not see free colour charges, unlike electromagnetic charges such as an isolated electron or ions. Confinement is related to how whenever we try to pull apart some bound state of strong charged objects, such as a proton into its 3 quark components, it requires so much energy that new quarks are formed and once again collect together to create something which is colour-neutral. It's this which causes 2 quarks being pulled apart to be connected by a 'flux tube' of gluons. The flux tube's internal energy grows linearly with the separation distance. Eventually it snaps and the potential energy is dumped into making more quarks to maintain the colour neutrality of the bound states. That is confinement, not the asymptotic freedom you said. Asymptotic freedom is about energy scales and coupling runnings. In things like Newtonian gravity the force between 2 objects is dependent upon their charges (ie mass in this case) and the distance between them. In quantum field theory there's an additional consideration which is the energies the particles have. Consider 2 charged particles (quark and quark or electron and electron etc) some set distance apart. The strength with which they will interact depends not just on their charges and distance but also in how fast they are moving relative to one another. In the case of the electromagnetic force two electrons at rest with respect to one another will interact less than two electrons at the same distance apart but moving very quickly. This is because the EM force has a running coupling which goes up as the energy scale increases (QED contains a Landau pole). For the strong force it is the other way around, two fast moving quarks interact less than 2 stationary ones. As you make them move faster and faster the coupling goes down and down and eventually tends to zero. That is asymptotic freedom, the quarks are free (ie don't interact) as the momenta goes to infinity. The fact, which you've demonstrated again, you don't even know what the phenomena in question are shows you cannot possibly be correctly explaining them, since you don't know what you're trying to explain! You loudly complained about it, saying "Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.", clearly implying that's what the mainstream supposedly says. It's not my fault you cannot explain yourself clearly. QCD does allow you to talk about the structure of baryons. In fact explaining the mass/spin structure of baryons is what lead to QCD. Look up things like 'The Eight-fold way'. Using group theory it's possible to construct representations of the SU(3) gauge group associated to the strong force which explain the spin/mass multiplets of families of baryons! The problem isn't with what the mainstream says, it's what you understand it (or rather don't understand it) to say. You clearly have no knowledge of the mathematical workings so at best all your knowledge is superficial wordy simplifications others have provided for you but as I just demonstrated, even that you don't understand. You're tilting at windmills, complaining about things which are actually an artifact of your ignorance. And you didn't read what I said or bother to go find anything out about it. The Hydrogen example was a specific examine of a more general concept which I'd just explained. Obviously it passed you by so I'll explain it again. If you want to work out the spectra of molecules then in quantum mechanics it is done by solving the Schrodinger equation eigenvalue problem for the molecule. The Schrodinger equation includes terms which involve particle masses and charges and interactions. Therefore the result of solving the equation is dependent upon the values of the masses of the particles involved. In quantum chemistry the computation of something like the spectrum of Carbon Dioxide involves putting in the masses of the electrons, the carbon nucleus and the oxygen nuclei. By measuring the real spectrum of the molecule it is then possible to work out the masses of the electrons and nuclei. It isn't done that way because there's more precise methods but it is still possible. I gave the Hydrogen example because it's the example everyone learns in university and it has analytic answers which are clearly dependent upon the mass of the electron and the charges of the proton and electron, illustrating how you could measure Hydrogen spectra and then work out properties of the electron from it. The proton isn't involved in that case due to translation invariance but something like the Hydrogen molecule definitely involves them. The H_{2}^{+} ion is one of the most studied ions in all of quantum chemistry. But you wouldn't know any of this since you haven't ever done a quantum mechanics course, you haven't read any books on it and your mathematical capabilities are so bad even if you picked up a book on this stuff you couldn't understand it. Interactions between particles is how we explore their properties. The interactions between high energy electron beams and nucleons is what allowed us to experimentally demonstrate the nucleons are made up of smaller things, we deduced their structure. This isn't even a difficult concept to grasp, I don't see why you're struggling. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense? Considering your work is internally inconsistent and, by your own admittance(!), contradicted by experiments the answer is the SM. No, it is true. Given the same data two different models will, almost certainly, output different results. For example, quantum mechanics and quantum field theory predict different values for things like the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. The latter predicts g=2 exactly. The latter corrects this with effects which involve relativity, as quantum mechanics is non-relativistic while quantum field theory is relativistic. Hell, you give an example yourself. You claim the strong coupling constant doesn't flow to 0. The asymptotic freedom calculations (computing the beta function) are done using QCD, so it is QCD which predicts that eventually \alpha \to 0. You claim such calculations are nonsense. But it's the same model, the same types of Feynman diagrams, the same perturbative construct, which is used to convert accelerator data, which only measures energies and momenta, into a value for \alpha. Colliders measure lots and lots of (\mathbf{x}_{j},\mathbf{p}_{j}) data sets, ie the position of a particle at some point in time and its momentum. This can then be converted into energy, charge and mass data using electromagnetics and relativity. Once you have energy, mass and momentum data you use those values to do lots and lots of Feynman diagrams, lots of perturbative (and some non-perturbative on a computer) calculations and they tell you what the relationship between the particles going in and the particles coming out are, according to the Standard Model. You then find what value of \alpha makes the predictions match experiment and there's your 'experimentally measured coupling constant value'. It's all thought the eyes of the Standard Model. If no value makes the calculations match experiment then the model is wrong. That's the scientific method. Now you claim all those calculation methods are nonsense, that they lead to wrong asymptotic freedom predictions. But then you claim you can accurately predict the coupling constant value. But that value, the value you get in data sheets published by places like CERN, is computed using those same calculations you're rubbishing! It's a fundamental inconsistency in your entire approach. I gave another example involving G, which also seems to have gone over your head. What does it mean when some paper says "The experimental value of G is ...."? Do we measure G directly? No, we don't. Instead we measure the movement and behaviour of some gravitational system and then use a model, Newtonian or GR, to convert that data into a value for G. For example, suppose you have 2 spheres of mass M and m. You place them in empty space, a distance 2L apart, and hold them still. You then simultaneously release them and they'll begin to accelerate towards one another due to gravity. You can time how long they take to collide, call it time T. Where's the value of G in all of that? How do you measure it directly? You don't. Instead you say "I have measured the masses, the distance and the time involved and now I'll put them into some gravitational model I have". Since you obviously don't understand how I'll explain it with a specific example.... Let's say m=M. By symmetry we know the masses collide at the centre point from their initial starting position. So initially let's place mass 1 at x = -L and mass 2 at x=+L. By symmetry and Newton's 3rd law each mass feels the equal and opposite force of the other so let's look at the mass which starts at x=L. It experiences a force F = -G\frac{m_{1}m_{2}}{D^{2}} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{(2x)^{2}} with x=L initially. That is where G comes in, we have assumed a model for gravity, relating mass, distance and force. Now we use another model to relate force to acceleration, F = ma = m\ddot{x}. So now we combine those two models and have m\ddot{x} = -G\frac{m^{2}}{4x^{2}} and so \ddot{x} = -\frac{Gm}{4x^{2}}. This is a second order differential equation with initial conditions x(0) = L and \dot{x}(0) = 0. We know L and m so we could put them into our equation. Let's say m=4 and L=1 so we have \ddot{x} = -\frac{G}{x^{2}} with x(0)=1. The only unknown is G and we've yet to use T. Solving this equation gives x(t) and we want the t where x(t)=0, call it t*. Clearly this will depend on the value of G. Well since G is an overall scaling factor we can explicitly work out the G dependency. It involves a change of variables t = \sqrt{G}\tau, which gives us x'' = -\frac{1}{x^{2}} with x(0)=1 and x'(0)=0 again, solve numerically and then we rescale back at the end. I'm in no doubt you don't understand how to do this but suffice to say the answer is t* = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}. But we measured t* in the experiment, its T. Therefore we have the equation T = \frac{1.1107}{\sqrt{G}}. We know T so we can now get a value for G. That is how you extract things like coupling values from experiment. You don't measure them directly, you infer them from actually observable things like time and distance and then use a model to convert the 'raw data' into the coupling value. In this example it's the value of G but the concept applies to quantum couplings too. The values of the fine structure constant or the strong coupling constant are not directly measured, they are extracted from directly measurable things using a model. In the case of the strong coupling constant that model is the Standard Model, particularly QCD. To measure Planck's constant high precision current flows are measured through superconductors using the Josephson effect for example. Clearly if the model is changed then the extracted value of the coupling constant will change. Adding more quarks to the SM will alter it. Saying F=2ma in Newtonian mechanics would alter the calculation I did above, resulting in a different prediction for the value of G. This is why it's necessary to do many different types of experiment, so you use other means to compute the coupling constant and hopefully they all overlap, giving you confidence you're on the right track. If the models used to extract the coupling value from raw data are called into question then you have to go back to the raw data. You say QCD is nonsense, that the quark model is a 'sham'. So then you disagree with the models, the calculations, the quark processes, which are used to convert particle scattering data in an accelerator into things like the strong coupling constant. Therefore saying you can predict it to a high precision is logically inconsistent, since the value you're working with is computed using QCD. If you denounce QCD and the SM then you can only say "I can accurately describe/explain baryon physics" if you're applying your ideas to the raw data, everything else is 'tainted' because the Standard Model has been used to convert the raw data into other values. I've explained this to you many times, over the space of perhaps 2 years. I've given you example after example. This is not a difficult concept to grasp yet you don't seem to grasp it. You think I'm talking about units, about the definition of lengths etc, but I am not. That only shows you have a very poor grasp of the basic procedure of experimental science. You've shown time and again you don't bother to check what scientists say, you just put words in our mouths. You've shown time and again you're utterly ignorant of what particle physics involves. That isn't just the in-depth calculations, though it is blatantly obvious you cannot do any of the mathematics involved in things like relativity or quantum field theory (despite how you used to claim you do know QFT), it's the conceptual procedures. A good scientist needs to know the assumptions, procedures and models used in obtaining and processing experimental data, even if they themselves do not do experiments. You have shown you not only don't know but you don't try to find out even when such shortcomings on your part are pointed out. Repeatedly. You don't know what particle physicists say, you don't know their/our work and you have shown you have no problem completely misrepresenting them/us. It does confine at low energies. Low energies are the usual state of nucleons, which show confinement. What you mean is high energy and high density. In high energy/high density systems colour locking breaks down and you get a quark-gluon plasma. Besides, the weakening of the coupling constant happens at high energy. Another example of how you don't grasp this stuff, even after I've explained it to you many many times over years. You yourself admit you predict things contradicting experimental bounds! There's no bigotry there, you're clearly, demonstrably wrong. And as I've just done, there's plenty of justification for dismissing your work as nonsense. It isn't like I just post a one line post saying "Wrong! You're an idiot!", I explain at great length why you're mistaken. I've got nothing to hide about my opinion of your claims, I can justify all of what I've said. The fact you've spent 48 years doing this nonsense is crazy. So much time and you understand so little. You've squandered those 48 years, all because you cannot accept any kind of correction. Farsight and a few others here should take a look at you, you're a case study in crankdom. Maybe they'll then realise they need to be more realistic, lest they end up like you. Yes I definitely understood. You have great communication skills. Now I'll read your post. That was great. I feel like I've attended an 'introductory' lecture on the subjects you referenced. Thanks for linking the paper. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 09:29 AMhttp://arxiv.org/abs/0802.0176 This paper proves that I am right. Just the relativistic correction. You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement. As usually you are not right. In the low-energy regime the mean distance of quarks is GREATEST and then the running coupling has the maximum value i.e. about 14.4 for interacting strongly nucleons via pions or 1 for interacting strongly pions. When nucleons collide and energy increases then mean distance between quarks decreases and value of the alpha_strong decreases. The QCD leads to the zero (i.e. the quarks become free – we never observed such state of quarks) whereas my theory leads to the asymptote 0.1139. It is my prediction. We will able confront my prediction with future experimental results. This is the difference between the asymptotic freedom in the QCD and my theory. The future experiments will show which theory is correct. As usually, you try to COMPARE the different methods applied in the mainstream QCD and my theory and because they are different then you still shriek out that I am not right. I wrote many times that such “discussion” is stupid. There are the different initial conditions and there are applied different methods whereas there are the same definitions so we can compare which theoretical results are better i.e. closer to experimental data. If you do not understand the above SIMPLE conclusion then discussion is useless. You write and write the nonsense to prove that you are right but you are not. And my simple proof is as follows. There is the mainstream QCD and the masses of the up and down quarks are the initial parameters. But they are not defined exactly. This means that such theory can be worthless, that someday there will appear new initial conditions, new set of parameters and new methods and such new theory will lead to more experimental data than the mainstream QCD, for example, to the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons as well. Such theory is in existence – it is the Everlasting Theory. This theory leads to the same theoretical results concerning the mean square charge for the nucleon components. In the low-energy regime, for sample containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons, my theory gives value 0.29Q^2 (see page 19) whereas experimental result is (0.28 ± 0.03)Q^2 whereas the mainstream QCD gives 0.28Q^2. We can see that both theoretical results overlap with the experimental result. I calculated also sum of the squares of electric charges for the high-energy regime (see page 90, formula (213): for E<3.6 GeV is 2.1, for E<227 GeV is 3.9 and my prediction for E>227 GeV is 8.9 and it is my next prediction! The 2.1 and 3.9 are very close to experimental data. So once more: I apply different methods but I obtain results which are consistent or very close to experimental data. You cannot compare the different methods. Most important are the predictions and NUMBER OF PARAMETERS. Even in Wikipedia you can read as follows. “In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...” AlphaNumeric10-31-12, 09:37 AMThis paper proves that I am right. Just the relativistic correction.You claimed Venus's motion couldn't be explained. Even in Wikipedia you can read as follows. “In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...”Which is what I said when I corrected several things you said about confinement and asymptotic freedom. I can't help but notice you completely ignored my lengthy explanation of how dismissing QCD methods implies dismissing the value of the strong coupling constant found in the literature and how this fatally undermines your work. Planning to spend another 48 years in denial are you? Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 09:57 AMInteractions between particles is how we explore their properties. The interactions between high energy electron beams and nucleons is what allowed us to experimentally demonstrate the nucleons are made up of smaller things, we deduced their structure. This isn't even a difficult concept to grasp, I don't see why you're struggling. Are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense? AlphaNumeric, are you being deliberately obtuse or are you just plain dense? Do you assume that readers do not see your swindle? It is obvious that the first your sentence is correct. But you “forgave” that the photon spectrums of atoms follows from the electromagnetic interactions whereas to know internal structure of the nuclei components we must take into account the other interactions as well! Only an idiot can claim that we can decipher the internal structure of protons and neutrons from the photon spectrums of atoms only. You still try to belittle the difference between structures of particles and their interactions because the QCD assumes WRONGLY that even free nucleons consist of the up and down quarks which in fact appear due to the interactions of the stable structures of the nucleons. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 10:06 AMYou claimed Venus's motion couldn't be explained. And it is your next swindle. The OBSERVATIONAL result for perihelion precession of Venus is about 204 arc seconds per century. Can you cite a paper in which theoretical result for Venus is 204 arc seconds per century? Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 10:30 AMI gave another example involving G, which also seems to have gone over your head. What does it mean when some paper says "The experimental value of G is ...."? Do we measure G directly? No, we don't. Instead we measure the movement and behaviour of some gravitational system and then use a model, Newtonian or GR, to convert that data into a value for G. That is how you extract things like coupling values from experiment. You don't measure them directly, you infer them from actually observable things like time and distance and then use a model to convert the 'raw data' into the coupling value. Incredible! At first you write something I never wrote. Then you “prove” that I am not right. It is very funny method, indeed. You write the obvious truths. There is some definition. In such definition can be physical quantities measured directly and indirectly. Even for children in primary school it is obvious. You, from such obvious truth, created big problem. But I can formulate a question which to have gone over your head. What physical phenomena lead to the value of the G? The answer and needed calculations are in my book. There is described also the origin of the Planck constant, the speed of light, elementary electric charge, mass of electron and so on. The explanations are very simple and the theoretical results overlap or are very, very close to experimental data. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 10:43 AMYou say QCD is nonsense, that the quark model is a 'sham'. No. The mainstream QCD needs revision. It is in my book. The revised QCD leads to the mass spectrum of the quarks, even to the exact masses of the up and down quarks. But the other properties of the quarks are different. For example, they are not point particles and consist of the carriers of gluons, and so on. It is the reason why I call them the sham quarks. See pages 89-95. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 10:52 AMIt does confine at low energies. Do you claim that mainstream THEORY confines at low energy? You know, there is$1,000,000 reward for the author. As usually you swindle and swindle. My theory confines in low-energy regime but origin of such “confinement” is different. Just the atom-like structure of the baryons is the solution. AlphaNumeric10-31-12, 02:35 PMYou fail to retort my explanation of why your claims are inconsistent. There's no need for me to type another lengthy post, it would only allow you to change the subject. Until you can address that point you've got a flawed piece of work. Likewise with the fact, which you admit, you predict things outside of experimental bounds. /edited Oh and to illustrate you're unfamiliar with the nuances of gauge theories, the \$1million prize you are referring to is the proof that Yang Mills wth a compact gauge group has a mass gap. This is not synonymous with there being confinement. They are related phenomena but it is not necessarily the case that proving the existence of one in axiomatic gauge theory will prove the existence of the other. If you read the original paper which defines the problem for the Prize, written by Witten and Jaffe, you'll see they make a distinction between the two phenomena. They explicitly say it would be nice to prove both, along with another result, but it isnot necessary to win the prize. Furthermore, if you're interpreting what was said to be referring to the theory and not the actual physical reality, then you're a hypocrite. You state there's no proof of confinement (and therefore there's no proof there isn't confinement) yet you categorically assert QCD doesn't confine. You complain I assert something when the question is an open question yet you assert something about the same problem! Well done on being a hypocrite. Just an illustration of how two faced you can be. Sylwester Kornowski10-31-12, 04:20 PMAlphaNumeric, even in Wikipedia you can find following sentence. “Proof that QCD confines at low energy is a mathematical problem of great relevance, and an award has been proposed by the Clay Mathematics Institute for whoever is ALSO able to show that the Yang–Mills theory has a mass gap and its existence.” Can you see the word ‘also’ which concerns the ‘mass gap’? Most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. It means that I am right. Within my Everlasting Theory, I proved that “confinement” has different origin and I proved that there is the mass gap (see pages 27 and 28) i.e. why there changes the local mass density of the zero-energy gluon field. brucep10-31-12, 05:20 PMAlphaNumeric, even in Wikipedia you can find following sentence. “Proof that QCD confines at low energy is a mathematical problem of great relevance, and an award has been proposed by the Clay Mathematics Institute for whoever is ALSO able to show that the Yang–Mills theory has a mass gap and its existence.” Can you see the word ‘also’ which concerns the ‘mass gap’? Most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. It means that I am right. Within my Everlasting Theory, I proved that “confinement” has different origin and I proved that there is the mass gap (see pages 27 and 28) i.e. why there changes the local mass density of the zero-energy gluon field. It only proves you're right from the 'Kornowski' POV. Nobody else agrees with you so the consensus is the 'Kornowski' POV is wrong. That's why your discourse is taking place in the Alternative theory section of a public science forum. Your prediction for neutrino speed empirically round files The Everlasting Theory. Not to mention the other bogus predictions for matter exceeding the local coordinate speed of light. Your theory is empirically confirmed nonsense. wlminex10-31-12, 05:54 PMSylwester . . . . hang in there!! brucep10-31-12, 06:39 PMSylwester . . . . hang in there!! Good for Sylwester. Hanging onto empirically falsified theoretical predictions is what cranks do. Apparently you can't understand what AN said either. IE hanging 'the theoretical prediction' from a sky hook. wlminex10-31-12, 07:25 PMI have no problem . . . "understanding what AN said 'aether'." . . . pun intended . . . it's really a shame that so-called scientists cannot entertain new ideas without personally deriding the members' integrity . . . . is this NOT an On the Fringe . . . Alternative Theories Thread?? brucep10-31-12, 07:58 PMNo. The mainstream QCD needs revision. It is in my book. The revised QCD leads to the mass spectrum of the quarks, even to the exact masses of the up and down quarks. But the other properties of the quarks are different. For example, they are not point particles and consist of the carriers of gluons, and so on. It is the reason why I call them the sham quarks. See pages 89-95. You did say that so now you're lying. Screw your book. It's not worth reading since you've already pointed out that predictions of your theory have been empirically falsified. It's roundfiled. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 08:24 AMIt only proves you're right from the 'Kornowski' POV. Nobody else agrees with you so the consensus is the 'Kornowski' POV is wrong. That's why your discourse is taking place in the Alternative theory section of a public science forum. Your prediction for neutrino speed empirically round files The Everlasting Theory. Not to mention the other bogus predictions for matter exceeding the local coordinate speed of light. Your theory is empirically confirmed nonsense. Brucep, you are big sluggard so you write the same nonsense as AlphaNumeric. I explained in my previous posts very precisely why the last experimental data concerning the superluminal neutrino speed are worthless – see my post #182 AND ESPECIALLY #187. Moreover, I cited you so you read it. It means that similarly as AlphaNumeric you try to swindle readers. I proved that you and AlphaNumeric did not understand the perihelion precession of planets. Just you and AlphaNumeric did not understand that the 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury and the 8.62 for Venus are the relativistic corrections ONLY. I claimed that the theoretical result for Venus, i.e. about 204, which is consistent with the observational fact, is calculated in my book only. I asked to cite a paper if I am not right. Till today there is no response. I proved on base of the atom theory that from photon spectrum of atoms we cannot calculate many physical quantities which concern structure of atom as a whole. The same is in QCD. From the mass spectrum of the quarks (especially the up and down quarks) we never calculate a few physical quantities which concerns the structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric claimed that I am not right but the unproductive 48 years shows that I am right. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand asymptotic freedom – I cited the sentence from the Wikipedia. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right that the QCD confines at low energy. On the other hand, he claims that he understand confinement. If it is true then he should show how QCD confines at low energy. Can he do it? Of course not. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand difference between different theories. I claimed that if in different theories (different initial conditions, different parameters and methods) are the same definitions then due to not the same number of parameters we can obtain the same theoretical results and compare them with experimental data. Of course, I am right whereas AlphaNumeric is not. And so on. The last your and AlphaNumeric discussion with me shows that STILL I am right, not you. You and AlphaNumeric can write the nonsense or unimportant things only. You completely do not understand physics. The hundreds unsolved basic problems in theoretical particle physics and cosmology cannot teach you that there must be the physics beyond the mainstream theories. All my theoretical results (a few hundred) are TODAY consist or very close to experimental data. Of course, there are many predictions as well – they differ from the mainstream predictions. If you claim that I wrote untrue then you should prove it. If once again you will not prove your claims, I will write that you are big liar. You just write at random. You both swindle and swindle to be right but readers know that you both are not right. Just you both compromise yourself. BTW, the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) in fact is the SHAM Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism is not in existence. In my book I proved it. AlphaNumeric11-01-12, 10:05 AMAlphaNumeric, even in Wikipedia you can find following sentence. “Proof that QCD confines at low energy is a mathematical problem of great relevance, and an award has been proposed by the Clay Mathematics Institute for whoever is ALSO able to show that the Yang–Mills theory has a mass gap and its existence.” Can you see the word ‘also’ which concerns the ‘mass gap’? Most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. It means that I am right.I am referencing the original paper where Witten and Jaffe lay out the specific details, ie what mathematical problem the prize is actually for. I said so in my last post. I guess you missed that. Besides, my point about you being a hypocrite is valid. You state things about the theory and then complain I state things about the theory, using the "There's a prize for resolving that question" reason that I'm wrong to state things. So it's okay for you to state things but not me? You hypocrite. And this isn't an ad hom, it's a statement of fact because you're using one rule for me and another for you. Within my Everlasting Theory, I proved that “confinement” has different origin and I proved that there is the mass gap (see pages 27 and 28) i.e. why there changes the local mass density of the zero-energy gluon field.I don't care what your work says. I've already explained why it's internally inconsistent and how you ADMIT it predicts things outside of experimental bounds. A 'beautiful theory' (as you keep calling your work) which is experimentally falsified is wrong, regardless of elegance. There's plenty of elegant mathematical constructs which are physically invalid, the ultimate discriminator of whether or not they predict accurate things. You admit your work doesn't. Your work is falsified. Everything else is irrelvant. I don't care what else your work says, what you claim is the explanation for this or that phenomenon, all that matters is the fact your work is experimentally falsified. It is wrong. Sylwester . . . . hang in there!!Why? He admits his work doesn't match experiment. I've also explained why it is internally inconsistent. Hanging onto an admittedly falsified idea is pointless. Sure, he might want to take some ideas from it and develop something new since trying to come up with alternatives to the mainstream is fine. However, if he ignores evidence and his own admittance that his work is contradicted by experiment what does he gain by clinging to his work? Nothing. Both of you (and many other hacks here) need to realise that it's okay to admit you're wrong. Every single good scientist will have done that many many times during their lifetime. I'm frequently wrong. Anyone who thinks their work is beyond reproach is delusional. Unfortunately hacks seem to regularly be such people. If you are really wanting to advance science and to present new and innovative approaches to problems in science then you need to realise there's a difference between thinking outside of the box and just making up random nonsense and also realise there's a difference between having confidence in your work and blindly clinging to demonstrably wrong ideas. It's ironic hacks complain the mainstream cling to their ideas in the face of evidence when they do exactly that themselves. Yet more hypocrisy. I have no problem . . . "understanding what AN said 'aether'." . . . pun intended . . . it's really a shame that so-called scientists cannot entertain new ideas without personally deriding the members' integrity . . . . is this NOT an On the Fringe . . . Alternative Theories Thread??I've explained, at great length over the space of YEARS, to Sylwester the fundamental problem in his work. Just look at my last few posts in this thread. I'm not just posting "You're an idiot", I'm explaining why Sylwester is wrong. The fact Sylwester ignores the clear evidence he's wrong is what makes me call him a hack and dishonest. That behaviour does undermine his integrity. People don't get integrity automatically, they earn it and Sylwester has squandered all of his on delusion and nonsense. As for whether or now Sylwester can post here and not expect to be derided the fringe section is where you're allowed to post fringe nonsense, that is different from being allowed to post fringe stuff and noone can criticise it. If Sylwester only wants to hear good things and never have any criticism then he should get a blog or just stop coming on the internet because it would mean he isn't interested in science, only deluding himself. You seem to think the fringe section is a place where no one can have their work criticised or critiqued. That says a hell of a lot about your mentality, since any honest competent scientist would understand that review, critique and evaluation is an essential part of science. If someone wants to be immune to such feedback then they aren't interested in science. If Sylwester could engage in honest discussion I'd not say he's dishonest. The complete refusal to listen to negative feedback is almost universal in the fringe community here, while the opposite is true for the posters here who are competent at science. Ironic, given the fringe section complain such behaviour is in the mainstream community, not theirs. Just you and AlphaNumeric did not understand that the 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury and the 8.62 for Venus are the relativistic corrections ONLY. I claimed that the theoretical result for Venus, i.e. about 204, which is consistent with the observational fact, is calculated in my book only. I asked to cite a paper if I am not right. Till today there is no response.You obviously didn't read the article I linked to. It talks about more than just the relativistic correction. Since you like citing Wikipedia, if you check Wikipedia you'll see it says the motion of Venus is well described by current gravity models. I proved on base of the atom theory that from photon spectrum of atoms we cannot calculate many physical quantities which concern structure of atom as a whole. The same is in QCD. From the mass spectrum of the quarks (especially the up and down quarks) we never calculate a few physical quantities which concerns the structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric claimed that I am not right but the unproductive 48 years shows that I am right.You make claims about QCD which are demonstrably false. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand asymptotic freedom – I cited the sentence from the Wikipedia.I cited the paper Wikipedia cites! And I'm the guy who had to explain the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom to you. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right that the QCD confines at low energy. Nice hypocrisy. I said QCD confines and you said "But it's still an open problem! You can't assert that!" but then go on to say "QCD doesn't confine!". But if it's still an open problem you can't say that either. Hypocrite. On the other hand, he claims that he understand confinement. If it is true then he should show how QCD confines at low energy. Can he do it? Of course not.So to show I understand confinement I have to prove QCD confines? Nice strawman. Are you aware your logic is terrible? I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand difference between different theories. I claimed that if in different theories (different initial conditions, different parameters and methods) are the same definitions then due to not the same number of parameters we can obtain the same theoretical results and compare them with experimental data. Of course, I am right whereas AlphaNumeric is not.More strawmanning. People only need read my last few posts to see you haven't understand anything I've said. People are welcome to ask me to elaborate, I have nothing to hide. And so on. The last your and AlphaNumeric discussion with me shows that STILL I am right, not you. You and AlphaNumeric can write the nonsense or unimportant things only. You completely do not understand physics. The hundreds unsolved basic problems in theoretical particle physics and cosmology cannot teach you that there must be the physics beyond the mainstream theories.There's plenty of unsolved problems in physics, there always have been and there always will be. None of which has any impact on how well I understand it. You just pump out the non sequitors, don't you? And I'm certain I've contributed more to science than you ever will. People pay to listen to me when it comes to mathematical physics. You have to spam thousands of physicists' email boxes and no one gives you the time of day. Perhaps that's why your lies become ever more ridiculous and ever more blatent, you're having to become louder and more crazy to even get anyone's attention. Unfortunately for you the attention is in the form of pointing and laughing. All my theoretical results (a few hundred) are TODAY consist or very close to experimental data.A fact you admitted is false. You admitted your prediction was outside experimental bounds. This is such blatent lying I don't know why you do it.... Of course, there are many predictions as well – they differ from the mainstream predictions. If you claim that I wrote untrue then you should prove it. If once again you will not prove your claims, I will write that you are big liar. You just write at random.You admitted it in this very thread in the last few pages. Do you need me to link you to the post? BTW, the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) in fact is the SHAM Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism is not in existence. In my book I proved it.That sums up your delusions, your denial of reality. Anything which doesn't square with your assumptions you ignore. You complain about the denial in the mainstream community while showing far worse yourself. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 12:40 PMI am referencing the original paper where Witten and Jaffe lay out the specific details, ie what mathematical problem the prize is actually for. I said so in my last post. I guess you missed that. Are you referencing? You hypocrite. There should be the link all could read it in details. In Wikipedia is that most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. So I am waiting for the link because you many times proved that you do not understand what you are reading. I don't care what your work says. I've already explained why it's internally inconsistent and how you ADMIT it predicts things outside of experimental bounds. A 'beautiful theory' (as you keep calling your work) which is experimentally falsified is wrong, regardless of elegance. There's plenty of elegant mathematical constructs which are physically invalid, the ultimate discriminator of whether or not they predict accurate things. You admit your work doesn't. You proved that my theory is internally inconsistent? You only proved that I apply different methods but it does not mean that my theory is inconsistent. It is obvious that in different theories can be applied different methods. It is not reason to disqualify any theory. You just do not understand physics. You proved it many times. Whereas if you claim that someone of my theoretical results is not consistent or not very close to experimental data, you should cite it – just page and/or formula and the incorrect result. I admit something? You hypocrite. origin11-01-12, 12:57 PMWhereas if you claim that someone of my theoretical results is not consistent or not very close to experimental data, :D Wow, I will try that at my next experimental results review. "I think my hypothesis is correct because while it is not statistically consistent with the data, it is very close!" I am sure that will fly.:rolleyes: If they question me I will, tell them I am using Sylwester Statistics and call them hypocrites and liars. Well on the other hand I want to keep my job so I will stick with real data and real statistics. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 01:09 PMAs for whether or now Sylwester can post here and not expect to be derided the fringe section is where you're allowed to post fringe nonsense, that is different from being allowed to post fringe stuff and noone can criticise it. If Sylwester only wants to hear good things and never have any criticism then he should get a blog or just stop coming on the internet because it would mean he isn't interested in science, only deluding himself. AlphaNumeric, it is incredible. I proved exactly in my posts why you are not right. There are the links, cited sentences and the common facts. But your moral nature is very bad. You are not right but you will offend, to lie and write at random because you are thinking that if you will throw discussion into confusion nobody will notice your incompetence. You do not know me. I am brave man. When I am not right then I always say that I am not right. Someday I did it in front of many peoples, also my pupils, when I was director of a school. But simultaneously I cannot tolerate such liar as you are. You know, there is my real name whereas there is your nickname. Maybe it is the reason that you think that you are unpunished when you swindle readers? Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 01:33 PM:D Wow, I will try that at my next experimental results review. "I think my hypothesis is correct because while it is not statistically consistent with the data, it is very close!" I am sure that will fly.:rolleyes: If they question me I will, tell them I am using Sylwester Statistics and call them hypocrites and liars. Well on the other hand I want to keep my job so I will stick with real data and real statistics. Origin, you just proved that you do not understand physics. You do not understand that in mathematics 4 = 3.98 is the bad result whereas in physics it can be accepted because sometimes we neglect phenomena which are not important to understand the considered problem. Then the picture is more transparent. In mainstream theoretical physics there are many such results and nobody says that they are incorrect. But in my theory are many theoretical results in which I took into account all needed phenomena. For example, calculated magnetic moment of muon within my theory leads to following value 1.001165921508 (see page 50, formula (142)). Trooper11-01-12, 01:44 PMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCQ9GIqpGBI Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 01:52 PMYou obviously didn't read the article I linked to. It talks about more than just the relativistic correction. Since you like citing Wikipedia, if you check Wikipedia you'll see it says the motion of Venus is well described by current gravity models. You are liar. I obviously did read the article you linked to. The title is as follows: “Relativistic Perihelion Procession of Orbits of Venus and the Earth”. Your link was as follows: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.0176.pdf All can see that there are the relativistic corrections only. Now you write that the theoretical calculations which should lead to the about 204 arc seconds per century for Venus are in Wikipedia. But where is the link? Is it your next bluff? You know, it is not a poker. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 02:29 PMYou make claims about QCD which are demonstrably false. It is just untrue sentence. You should prove it. But please, you should be precise and write only the truth. I cited the paper Wikipedia cites! And I'm the guy who had to explain the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom to you. So once more: I wrote about the asymptotic freedom as follows: “Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away.” Next you wrote as follows: “You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.” And next I cited the sentence from Wikipedia: ““In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...”. And next I explained that mean distance between quarks is smaller when energy is higher – it is the obvious fact. And it is the true. The conclusion is as follows: You do not understand the asymptotic freedom. Now about the confinement You wrote that QCD confines at low energy whereas I wrote that QCD does not confine at low energy. Then you admitted that I am right. It is obvious that you do not understand the confinement as a whole because TODAY nobody understands it entirely! This means that you taught me the phenomena you do not understand correctly. I claim that the real nature of the confinement is described in my book. It leads directly also to the mass of the sham Higgs boson. Moreover, there are in existence a few mass gaps associated with the real confinement. They are associated with the atom-like structure of baryons. To describe confinement, we must understand the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and origin of the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime components. All needed explanations are in my book. brucep11-01-12, 02:31 PMBrucep, you are big sluggard so you write the same nonsense as AlphaNumeric. I explained in my previous posts very precisely why the last experimental data concerning the superluminal neutrino speed are worthless – see my post #182 AND ESPECIALLY #187. Moreover, I cited you so you read it. It means that similarly as AlphaNumeric you try to swindle readers. I proved that you and AlphaNumeric did not understand the perihelion precession of planets. Just you and AlphaNumeric did not understand that the 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury and the 8.62 for Venus are the relativistic corrections ONLY. I claimed that the theoretical result for Venus, i.e. about 204, which is consistent with the observational fact, is calculated in my book only. I asked to cite a paper if I am not right. Till today there is no response. I proved on base of the atom theory that from photon spectrum of atoms we cannot calculate many physical quantities which concern structure of atom as a whole. The same is in QCD. From the mass spectrum of the quarks (especially the up and down quarks) we never calculate a few physical quantities which concerns the structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric claimed that I am not right but the unproductive 48 years shows that I am right. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand asymptotic freedom – I cited the sentence from the Wikipedia. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right that the QCD confines at low energy. On the other hand, he claims that he understand confinement. If it is true then he should show how QCD confines at low energy. Can he do it? Of course not. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand difference between different theories. I claimed that if in different theories (different initial conditions, different parameters and methods) are the same definitions then due to not the same number of parameters we can obtain the same theoretical results and compare them with experimental data. Of course, I am right whereas AlphaNumeric is not. And so on. The last your and AlphaNumeric discussion with me shows that STILL I am right, not you. You and AlphaNumeric can write the nonsense or unimportant things only. You completely do not understand physics. The hundreds unsolved basic problems in theoretical particle physics and cosmology cannot teach you that there must be the physics beyond the mainstream theories. All my theoretical results (a few hundred) are TODAY consist or very close to experimental data. Of course, there are many predictions as well – they differ from the mainstream predictions. If you claim that I wrote untrue then you should prove it. If once again you will not prove your claims, I will write that you are big liar. You just write at random. You both swindle and swindle to be right but readers know that you both are not right. Just you both compromise yourself. BTW, the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) in fact is the SHAM Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism is not in existence. In my book I proved it. You're hanging on to 'a personal theory' which has been empirically falsified. Theoretical predictions that predict matter can exceed the local coordinate speed of light are especially stupid. You haven't proven anything to anybody but yourself. That's what cranks do. You're a delusional liar. You didn't explain anything to AN other than your disconnect with reality. brucep11-01-12, 02:45 PMYou are liar. I obviously did read the article you linked to. The title is as follows: “Relativistic Perihelion Procession of Orbits of Venus and the Earth”. Your link was as follows: http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.0176.pdf All can see that there are the relativistic corrections only. Now you write that the theoretical calculations which should lead to the about 204 arc seconds per century for Venus are in Wikipedia. But where is the link? Is it your next bluff? You know, it is not a poker. You didn't learn anything. Could you write down details [the mathematical derivation] how your theory predicts the natural precession of all orbits? I wrote it down derived from the metric. You write it down for the strong field and weak field. BTW: The model you linked is pretty shabby. The Model AN linked is excellent. Both models are trying to derive a correlation with empirical measurements. The only theoretical prediction is Einstein. You must have forgotten something when you didn't access the the details for RRT. brucep11-01-12, 02:49 PMBrucep, you are big sluggard so you write the same nonsense as AlphaNumeric. I explained in my previous posts very precisely why the last experimental data concerning the superluminal neutrino speed are worthless – see my post #182 AND ESPECIALLY #187. Moreover, I cited you so you read it. It means that similarly as AlphaNumeric you try to swindle readers. I proved that you and AlphaNumeric did not understand the perihelion precession of planets. Just you and AlphaNumeric did not understand that the 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury and the 8.62 for Venus are the relativistic corrections ONLY. I claimed that the theoretical result for Venus, i.e. about 204, which is consistent with the observational fact, is calculated in my book only. I asked to cite a paper if I am not right. Till today there is no response. I proved on base of the atom theory that from photon spectrum of atoms we cannot calculate many physical quantities which concern structure of atom as a whole. The same is in QCD. From the mass spectrum of the quarks (especially the up and down quarks) we never calculate a few physical quantities which concerns the structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric claimed that I am not right but the unproductive 48 years shows that I am right. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand asymptotic freedom – I cited the sentence from the Wikipedia. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right that the QCD confines at low energy. On the other hand, he claims that he understand confinement. If it is true then he should show how QCD confines at low energy. Can he do it? Of course not. I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand difference between different theories. I claimed that if in different theories (different initial conditions, different parameters and methods) are the same definitions then due to not the same number of parameters we can obtain the same theoretical results and compare them with experimental data. Of course, I am right whereas AlphaNumeric is not. And so on. The last your and AlphaNumeric discussion with me shows that STILL I am right, not you. You and AlphaNumeric can write the nonsense or unimportant things only. You completely do not understand physics. The hundreds unsolved basic problems in theoretical particle physics and cosmology cannot teach you that there must be the physics beyond the mainstream theories. All my theoretical results (a few hundred) are TODAY consist or very close to experimental data. Of course, there are many predictions as well – they differ from the mainstream predictions. If you claim that I wrote untrue then you should prove it. If once again you will not prove your claims, I will write that you are big liar. You just write at random. You both swindle and swindle to be right but readers know that you both are not right. Just you both compromise yourself. BTW, the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) in fact is the SHAM Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism is not in existence. In my book I proved it. You're a crank who is as useful as your empirically falsified theory. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 03:17 PMYou're hanging on to 'a personal theory' which has been empirically falsified. Theoretical predictions that predict matter can exceed the local coordinate speed of light are especially stupid. You haven't proven anything to anybody but yourself. That's what cranks do. You're a delusional liar. You didn't explain anything to AN other than your disconnect with reality. There is the time distance between the fronts of the neutrino- and photon beams for the supernova SN 1987A. I claim that it is due to the superluminal neutrinos whereas others claim that it is due to the structure of the supernova. But such model leads to existence of a neutron star after the explosion. We do not observe such object. All these observational facts are consistent with my theory. On the other hand, I proved why the last experiments concerning the superluminal neutrinos are worthless. Recapitulation We should wait for more precise experiments. Today scientists do not know many properties of the neutrinos so they continue the investigations which concern the superluminality as well. Do you think that they are stupid because they still check whether the neutrinos can be superluminal? This means that today we cannot forejudge which model is correct. Your post shows that you are person uninitiated in science because you repeatedly write the same nonsense. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right and all can see it besides you and a few other AlphaNumeric comrades. Your posts show that you are trolling. brucep11-01-12, 03:27 PMAre you referencing? You hypocrite. There should be the link all could read it in details. In Wikipedia is that most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. So I am waiting for the link because you many times proved that you do not understand what you are reading. You proved that my theory is internally inconsistent? You only proved that I apply different methods but it does not mean that my theory is inconsistent. It is obvious that in different theories can be applied different methods. It is not reason to disqualify any theory. You just do not understand physics. You proved it many times. Whereas if you claim that someone of my theoretical results is not consistent or not very close to experimental data, you should cite it – just page and/or formula and the incorrect result. I admit something? You hypocrite. Most cranks I've come across are ideologues. Ideologues seldom acknowledge facts that don't support 'the ideology'. You're a strange one. You acknowledge the disconnect with theoretical predictions and empirical reality but not the disconnect with logic that AN detailed for you. brucep11-01-12, 03:35 PMThere is the time distance between the fronts of the neutrino- and photon beams for the supernova SN 1987A. I claim that it is due to the superluminal neutrinos whereas others claim that it is due to the structure of the supernova. But such model leads to existence of a neutron star after the explosion. We do not observe such object. All these observational facts are consistent with my theory. On the other hand, I proved why the last experiments concerning the superluminal neutrinos are worthless. Recapitulation We should wait for more precise experiments. Today scientists do not know many properties of the neutrinos so they continue the investigations which concern the superluminality as well. Do you think that they are stupid because they still check whether the neutrinos can be superluminal? This means that today we cannot forejudge which model is correct. Your post shows that you are person uninitiated in science because you repeatedly write the same nonsense. I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right and all can see it besides you and a few other AlphaNumeric comrades. Your posts show that you are trolling. You said: "Your post shows that you are person uninitiated in science because you repeatedly write the same nonsense." Your opinion is as irrelevant as your pseudo-scientific ideology. How about you writing down what I asked of you? Just don't copy the derivation from the Schwarzschild solution for Einstein's Field Equations. AlphaNumeric11-01-12, 03:53 PMAre you referencing? You hypocrite. There should be the link all could read it in details. In Wikipedia is that most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. So I am waiting for the link because you many times proved that you do not understand what you are reading.I said I was quoting the original Witten and Jaffe paper. If you google for it you can find it. Complaining I didn't explicitly provide the link is pretty laughable. Is using Google too much for you? I gave you the author names and the subject is the mass gap problem from the Clay Institute. Obviously finding such information yourself is too difficult for you. You proved that my theory is internally inconsistent? You only proved that I apply different methods but it does not mean that my theory is inconsistent. It is obvious that in different theories can be applied different methods. It is not reason to disqualify any theory. You just do not understand physics. You proved it many times. Whereas if you claim that someone of my theoretical results is not consistent or not very close to experimental data, you should cite it – just page and/or formula and the incorrect result.You admit you have predictions outside of experimental bounds. It was in this very thread! Are you claiming otherwise? I admit something? You hypocrite.The fact you've just started repeating something I said to you shows you're clasping at straws. Can't think up your own insults? AlphaNumeric, it is incredible. I proved exactly in my posts why you are not right. There are the links, cited sentences and the common facts. But your moral nature is very bad. You are not right but you will offend, to lie and write at random because you are thinking that if you will throw discussion into confusion nobody will notice your incompetence.You change the subject or just assert things. You regularly reply with "The everlasting theory says...." and then just spew more assertions, failing to respond to me. You have yet to retort my explanation of why denouncing QCD but claiming you can predict QCD's strong coupling constant is inconsistent. You have yet to understand it, it would seem. You do not know me. I am brave man. When I am not right then I always say that I am not right.Evidently not. Someday I did it in front of many peoples, also my pupils, when I was director of a school. But simultaneously I cannot tolerate such liar as you are. You know, there is my real name whereas there is your nickname. Maybe it is the reason that you think that you are unpunished when you swindle readers?I pity people who had you as a teacher. As for swindling, I have explained all of my criticisms of your claims, repeatedly and at length. I repeat my offer to further elaborate should anyone else want me to be more specific. Now you write that the theoretical calculations which should lead to the about 204 arc seconds per century for Venus are in Wikipedia. But where is the link? Is it your next bluff? You know, it is not a poker.On Wikipedia it specifically states the precession of Venus is well explained by experiment and then links to the paper I linked you to. If you cannot find it yourself it isn't my fault. Again, use Google and some sense. It is just untrue sentence. You should prove it. But please, you should be precise and write only the truth.The problem is that when I go through things step by step you just ignore it. This thread is evidence of that. So once more: I wrote about the asymptotic freedom as follows: “Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away.” Next you wrote as follows: “You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.” And next I cited the sentence from Wikipedia: ““In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...”. And next I explained that mean distance between quarks is smaller when energy is higher – it is the obvious fact.There is a difference between the flux tube interactions between quarks, which makes the force between them increase as they are pulled apart, and the relativistic relationship between energy and inverse distance. You've mixed the two up, originally talking about the former and now referring to the latter. Besides, I don't for a nanosecond think you have a working grasp of any of this, ie gauge theory or relativity. Instead you're just parroting back bits of Wikipedia you think you graps. The conclusion is as follows: You do not understand the asymptotic freedom.Unlike you I have demonstrated my understanding of that to professors. I've given presentations about asymptotic freedom and I have a published paper pertaining to the mass gap in gauge theories. A paper published in a reputable journal and with citations from other academics. That's considerably more than you've managed. Now about the confinement You wrote that QCD confines at low energy whereas I wrote that QCD does not confine at low energy. Then you admitted that I am right.A flat out categorical lie. Well done on showing how dishonest and pathetic you are. It is obvious that you do not understand the confinement as a whole because TODAY nobody understands it entirely!So you admit no under understands it entirely yet you assert things about QCD's confinement? You complain I asserted something but then go on to assert something also. That's why I called you a hypocrite, it's hypocritical! This means that you taught me the phenomena you do not understand correctly.Your inability to grasp things I say doesn't mean I don't understand what I say. I claim that the real nature of the confinement is described in my book. You can claim all you want. What you can demonstrate is the important thing. It leads directly also to the mass of the sham Higgs boson. Moreover, there are in existence a few mass gaps associated with the real confinement. They are associated with the atom-like structure of baryons. To describe confinement, we must understand the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and origin of the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime components. All needed explanations are in my book.More assertions without merit. Your posts show that you are trolling.You just flat out lied about me. I don't think you're in any position to be complaining about trolling. You have 48 years of claiming you are capable of doing physics and you have 48 years of completely failing. You can do nothing but lie about people like myself, people who have demonstrable competency at science which you have tried and failed to do. In 10 years you'll be precisely where you are now, nowhere. That might sound somewhat spiteful but so be it, if it kicks you out of your delusions and makes you do something constructive with your existence. Just to be clear to you and others reading this, I don't feel any anger towards you, more a sense of pity that you can spend so long accomplishing so little. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 03:56 PMBrucep, you still are trolling. You violate the Forum rules. Sylwester Kornowski11-01-12, 04:07 PMAlphaNumeric, you are trolling as well. You violate the Forum rules. In your last post is none useful information and no scientific argument. You cannot write the links because you are bluffing. Only the ble, ble... Why some people are such dishonest? rpenner11-01-12, 04:36 PMSylwester Kornowski, explaining why what you contribute is neither science nor makes science better is not in violation of the forum rules (except in the Cesspool where any posting is in violation). Posting complaints about posts to unspecified third parties about posts instead of engaging in conversation with the poster may be in violation of forum rules as this conduct seems somewhat "hateful" and seems unnecessary when there is a Report functionality. Also, your profile seems to have an untrue claim in it, which diminishes any claim to physics authority you have. "Neutrino speed is 1.00005c > c" is not supported by experiment or any experimentally supported comprehensive theory of kinematics. Boldly asserting a claim in scientific language when it rests on no scientific foundation is an usurpation of the authority of science without cause or benefit to your readers. Why would you make such a statement is beyond me. http://www.sciforums.com/misc.php?do=showrules brucep11-02-12, 01:30 AMBrucep, you still are trolling. You violate the Forum rules. I was pretty sure you can't do it. Phoney baloney. Sylwester Kornowski11-02-12, 07:12 AMThe entanglement and weak interactions are common in the ground state of the Einstein spacetime. These interactions and the internal helicity of the strong field which follows from the atom-like structure of baryons lead to the real origin of the "confinement". Outside the strong fields, the gluons behave as photons because the electromagnetic field has not an internal helicity. Post ReplyCreate New Thread