Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

@Sylwester --

This link might help you figure out why Alpha isn't in the wrong by mentioning your "private" information. 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.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The 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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Comrade?
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.

 

@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.

 

In the SciForums rules is paragraph titled "Trolling". You should read it.

 

@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.

 

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

Due 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:

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.).

 

Pseudoscientific gibberish.

 

Arioch, 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.

 

I 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.

 

This 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.

 

@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.

 

Arioch, sometimes the conclusions are obvious. You wrote nothing about physics. Just try. You know, there should be some scientific arguments.

 

When 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.

 

The 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?

 

I 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.