Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, generally, in your posts are only the useless words (99%). Just you are trolling and trolling and trolling. You are unable to write at least one truly your own idea. You rewrite the Wikipedia and you cannot prove that in your thesis is at least one idea we cannot find in Wikipedia. Just your thesis and posts are useless.

You even are unable to notice that this Section in this Forum is titled “Alternative Theories”. You proved many times that you do not understand what you are reading. You claim that you are a competent physicist and mathematician but it is not true. I proved that you do not understand the foundations of physics and mathematics – see my previous posts. There is many undereducated PhDs and Professors and brilliant masters. All know it.

So, are you able to prove that there is at least one important your idea presented in Internet? You cannot do it! You are liar and dishonest person. You are able write only the invectives because you are a not esteemed and frustrated.

BTW, generally, my pupils were 16-19 years old. But all besides you know that it is not important to take stock of somebody. Only such loathsome person as you can do it.

You are unable to concentrate on scientific discussion because you are an ill person.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Some recapitulation is as follows.
The tremendous mess in theoretical particle physics follows from the assumption that the bare fermions, so bare bosons as well, are the mathematical points or flexible closed strings. It is the absolute truth that Professors cannot assume such nonsense. Such nonsense never will explain origin of the fundamental physical constants as the Planck constant, gravitational constant, the speed of light, charges and mass of electron.

The incompetence which follows from the nonsensical assumptions, i.e. that bare fermions are the mathematical points or flexible closed strings, leads to the approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters that appear in the Quantum Theory of Fields (the QTFs). Just it disqualifies the theoretical results obtained within the QTFs.

It is obvious for very good theoretical physicist that the internal structure of the bare fermions MUST follow from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime. There appear torus and ball in its centre. It leads to the very simple and perfect quantum theory that has the statistical interpretation and to the postulates applied in the General Theory of Relativity. And you can find the very simple theoretical particle physics and cosmology in my Everlasting Theory.

Bare fermions = torus + ball in its centre
And it is the reason why my Everlasting Theory is blocked. There are about 4 times less parameters and this theory is free from the approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters i.e. the things that disqualify the QTFs. The bare fermion-antifermion pairs can transform into loop-antiloop pairs and next into quanta.

In an Interview of V. Jamieson and R. Webb with Professor Lisa Randall there is formulated following question: “Is it a problem then, that our best theories of particle physics and cosmology are so messy?”
Lisa Randall said also as follows: “I think simplicity is a good guide: the more economical a theory, the better”.

And my reformulated string/M theory, described within the Everlasting Theory, is the more economical theory.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You should read following very instructive article:

http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2013/whats-next-for-the-large-hadron-collider

Among other things, Ashley WennersHerron and Kathryn Jepsen wrote as follows:
““We could be looking at a new framework,” says Joao Varela, a physicist with the Portuguese institute LIP and CMS deputy spokesperson. “It may not be the Standard Model or even supersymmetry. It might be something else entirely.””

And it will be because it is consistent with my Everlasting Theory i.e. with the lacking part of the ultimate theory.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

You are unable to write at least one truly your own idea.

I don't come here to talk about my own work. Despite what a number of you hacks think, I don't feel some kind of existential need to shove my work in peoples' faces. The same, however, cannot be said for many of said hacks. Besides, the status of my research is entirely irrelevant when it comes to evaluating your claims, which is what this thread is about. Whether or not you're correct is the issue at hand. But nice try at trying to change the subject and deflect away from your own issues. Can't think up valid retorts so just trying anything now, are you?

But if you must know original results which I developed during my PhD included constructing deformed Lie algebras to complete classify and then parametrise, using algebraic geometry, a family of orbifolded in Type II string flux compactifications invariant until intertwined T and S dualities, conjecturing a modified T duality in such orbifolds to explain certain discrete flux symmetries indicative of U duality and the necessary and sufficient conditions for particular meson spectra within an AdS/CFT construction. None of which you understand, no matter how much you'd like to redefine the terminology I just used. The work was submitted to the relevant people, ie reputable journals, rather than being posted on this forum since it wouldn't serve any purpose to do such a thing.

But then you knew of all of this because you know my real name and it's easy to find my papers given that the only other physicist in the world with my name is more than 80 years old. Remember how you got suspended for posting my name in a veiled manner to try and intimidate me? Remember how you complained about it, saying you'd disguised it?

You rewrite the Wikipedia

Are you literally accusing me of rewriting Wikipedia, ie the 'effective theories' page I linked to, to try to support my explanation as to the terminology 'effective theory'? Or do you mean I'm ignoring something on Wikipedia?

You should try reading actual physics books. You used to say you had experience with quantum field theory, if that were really the case you'd be aware of this terminology, as it is widely used. Hell, it is widely used outside of the particle physics community too. Newtonian mechanics is an effective theory for Einsteinian mechanics, ie in the low velocity, low energy, low mass limit of general relativity you get Newtonian gravity and likewise from special relativity you get Newtonian mechanics. In the low energy, large scale limit of quantum electrodynamics you get electromagnetism. If you were not so ignorant of the scientific literature you'd be aware of this. By showing you aren't aware of such terminology you show how little literature you've read.

and you cannot prove that in your thesis is at least one idea we cannot find in Wikipedia. Just your thesis and posts are useless.

Do you think that this attempt at insulting me will work? All of the papers I wrote during my PhD were published in reputable journals, passing peer review and then garnering citations. If there were not a single original result in any of them at least one of them would have been rejected, yet none of them were. My thesis, which was constructed from two of the three papers, then passed evaluation by a domain expert and then I passed my face to face viva examination where I had to explain my original work and stand up to scrutiny.

I know you want to paint this little narrative in your head that people who point and laugh at you can be ignored or don't measure up but the facts speak for themselves. You have spammed your work to hundreds of physicists in the past and gotten nowhere. You have been pushing your 'everlasting theory' about as long as I've been alive. You have not got any of your work published in any reputable journal, yet you try to take pot shots at people like myself, who have gotten original work published in reputable journals. Multiple times.

Besides, I don't come into this thread to talk about proper maths or physics, beyond explaining how you don't know either of them. I talk about actual maths and physics elsewhere on the forum, namely the maths and physics sub-forum. Feel free to go look at some of my recent posts in there where I demonstrate a working grasp of such things as special relativity or electromagnetism. Or would a little thing like truth get in the way of the warped, rose tinted view of the world you have?

You even are unable to notice that this Section in this Forum is titled “Alternative Theories”.

And? You're allowed to post 'alternative theories' here, doesn't mean people aren't allowed to point out their flaws.

You claim that you are a competent physicist and mathematician but it is not true. I proved that you do not understand the foundations of physics and mathematics – see my previous posts.

Yes, quite Shame it always transpires the literature agrees with me....

There is many undereducated PhDs and Professors and brilliant masters. All know it.

I don't disagree. I do the interviewing for the company I work for and we end up rejecting 98+% of applicants, all of whom have PhDs, on the grounds of poor knowledge outside of their speciality. That doesn't mean that there's no PhD with a competent grasp of maths and physics.

So, are you able to prove that there is at least one important your idea presented in Internet? You cannot do it! You are liar and dishonest person. You are able write only the invectives because you are a not esteemed and frustrated.

Sylwester, you know my name and so it isn't hard to find the papers I wrote during my PhD. Since all of them passed peer review by reputable journals, a fact I've told you several times, your "Oh you're a liar! You haven't got anything original!" approach is, yet again, deeply dishonest. This is something you have done before. You know the information is out there, you know where to look and yet you do not or you pretend the information isn't out there.

This constant, sustained level of dishonest from you really isn't very good. You might con the occasional casual reader into believing some of your claims but you know and I know the extent of your dishonest in threads like this. You know you know my name, you know I know you know. And yet you try the "Oh where's your original work!!", as if you are unaware my work passed review on multiple occasions. Really, you should be ashamed of yourself for this sort of thing.

BTW, generally, my pupils were 16-19 years old. But all besides you know that it is not important to take stock of somebody. Only such loathsome person as you can do it.

I didn't say I was using it to evaluate you. I said I wanted to know because I honestly wonder how someone such as yourself can hold down a job. Are you employed now? And I'll be clear, I'm not going to say "Ha! You're a failure!" if you say "I'm unemployed", it is purely a matter of curiosity as to what job you might have now, given your behaviour seems incongruous with the sorts of behaviour typically required in employment.

You are unable to concentrate on scientific discussion because you are an ill person.

I do find it humorous when you complain how I'm just throwing ad homs and then call me ill, loathsome and, if memory serves, you once even choose 'schizophrenic'. It's nice to see you practice what you preach

Anyway, enough about your attempts to shift the focus away from the abuse of terminology and misrepresentation contained with your work. Given the fact 'effective theory' has a specific meaning within the physics community are you going to stop using it in the current inappropriate way you are using it? Are you going to stop calling various bits of your work 'string theory' when it has nothing to do with the mainstream concept? If your 'version' is completely different from the mainstream version, lacking any of the required parts to be considered even remotely related to the mainstream concept, why are you not calling it something else? If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck and is a duck then calling it a dog is just dishonest.

 

[wellwisher]

The generation of particle collider data, on which much theory is based, occurs at very low gravity and very low gravity induced pressures. Is it possible this data is only part of a larger phase diagram and therefore only reflects how matter acts at high energy but low gravity/pressure?

If we assume a unified force, for the sake or argument, since the experiments are conducted under very low gravity, the unified force profile within the collider is short by a large gravity contribution; force balance is way too low.

As analogy if we take iron at earth surface gravity/pressure at 5000 F, iron is a gas. But inside the core of the earth, at this same temperature iron is solid. You would not be able to infer solid iron at 5000 F, from low gravity/pressure data. Collider data is analogous to the iron vapor area of a larger phase diagram. I would not build the theory of all matter on a small zone of a phase diagram. The burden of proof is for those who build theories to justify using only a small piece of a phase diagram.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you write the very long posts about nothing important, just about 99% of the nonsensical sentences. There is nothing important about math and physics. There is not at least one important your own idea. Your explanations that you cannot write about the tens basic problems unsolved within the mainstream theories are idiotic. In your posts, there are the misinterpretations only to draw attention away from your incompetence. You tried the tremendous number of times to show that I am not right writing about your incompetence so I have no choice. I must tremendous number of times show that I am right.
So my questions are as follows. If you are some honest man, you should answer the questions (just YES or NO without the personal attacks). Then all will able to see whether you are a competent PhD.
1.
Did you claim that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points? If the answer is YES (you claimed it) then you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and it is true that many great mathematicians in physics think incorrectly the same you think. Just, in contrary to you, PhD, I am a brilliant master.
2.
Did you prove that you, the same as many Professors (see the articles in Internet), completely do not understand the confinement? I proved that it is true. Just, in contrary to you, PhD, I am a brilliant Master of Physics.
3.
Did you understand the difference between the word effective and the term “effective” before I explained it to you?
Did you claim that the word effective in physics means ALWAYS approximate?
Do you still claim that the effective theories concern the low energy only?

You proved many times that you do not understand what you are reading. The same follows from your last post.
1.
It is not true that my string/M theory is not about the one bosonic string theory and the four superstring theories i.e. there are partially the same elements in my modified string/M theory and the mainstream string/M theory but contrary to the mainstream string/M theory, my theory is the economical theory. I wrote it many times but you still contradict it as an ill person.
2.
It is not true that I decoded your real name. You did it – see the previous posts. I just wrote the “beautiful” verse. I should not write the verse but you still provoke me. You still are trolling (99%). If there was democracy then you should be banned long ago because you behave as a bandit. The 99% of your posts are the personal attacks. It is because you know that I proved many times your incompetence and it will be in Internet forever. On the other hand, there indeed my Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and it will be in Internet forever as well.

So once more: The foundations of the lacking part of the ultimate theory are both the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime that lead to the internal structure of the bare fermions (torus + ball; 1997) and the Titius-Bode law for the strong interactions that leads to the atom-like structure of baryons (1985) and to the charge radius of proton perfectly consistent with experimental data (2013).

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Is it possible this data is only part of a larger phase diagram and therefore only reflects how matter acts at high energy but low gravity/pressure?

The Einstein-spacetime components produce gradient in the modified Higgs field. It is the gravitational field. The lower limit for the range of the gravitational field is the Planck length whereas the upper limit is about 2•10^32 m. Near the Einstein-spacetime components, i.e. for ranges smaller than about 4•10^-32 m, there is significantly lower pressure in the modified Higgs field. This negative pressure leads to the confinement of the Einstein-spacetime components. Then, there can appear the known particles.

There are two different phenomena associated with the Einstein-spacetime components. The first phenomenon leads to the gravitational field whereas the second to the weak interactions. Both phenomena follow from the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components. They consist of the binary systems of the smallest closed strings. They have internal helicity so they transform the chaotic motions of the components of the modified Higgs field into the jets (see my book).

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The difference between the gravity and confinement

Can we explain the difference between the gravitational field and field responsible for the confinement on base of some mechanical model?

YES. We can in very simple way point the difference between gravity and confinement.

Assume that the molecules of water are some analog to the tachyons the modified Higgs field consists of i.e. the water is some analog to the modified Higgs field.
Assume that the spout of a bath is some analog to the closed strings the Einstein-spacetime components consist of.

We know that when due to the gravitational potential energy of water, the water leaks via the spout of a bath then there is created depression on the surface of the water and a hole in the water near the spout.

The depression on the surface of the water is some analog to the gravitational field. There are the lower and upper limits for the range of the depression so for the gravitational field as well.
The hole in the water near the spout is some analog to the radically lowered pressure in the reformulated Higgs field near the Einstein-spacetime components that is responsible for the possible confinement of the Einstein-spacetime components when they are sufficiently close one to other.

The gradient/”depression” in the modified Higgs field, i.e. the gravitational field, is produced due to the internal helicity of the closed strings because the closed strings transform the chaotic motions of the tachyons into the divergently moving jets.
The “hole” responsible for the confinement is produced due to the interactions of the tachyons with the closed strings which as well consist of the tachyons. Due to the dynamic viscosity of the tachyons, the Einstein-spacetime components suck up the tachyons from the “hole”.

Why water, i.e. the liquid, can be some analog to the perfect gas composed of the tachyons? It is because pressure in the modified Higgs field is tremendous, in approximation 10^180 Pa. Such gas behaves as a liquid.

The Einstein-spacetime components are the neutrino-antineutrino pairs. Their spin is unitary.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

If you are some honest man, you should answer the questions (just YES or NO without the personal attacks).

Simply demanding a binary 'yes or no' doesn't mean the appropriate answer is just 'yes or no'. When details and subtleties are important then exposition is needed. The world isn't black and white. For example, did you stop beating your wife to make that post? Yes or no only!

Then all will able to see whether you are a competent PhD.

So what determines whether I'm a competent PhD is not the multiple published papers, the novel results, the university teaching experience, the decade of university level and beyond experience I have and my position as a professional researcher but rather whether or not I can answer a handful of questions with a yes or a no.

1. Did you claim that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points? If the answer is YES (you claimed it) then you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and it is true that many great mathematicians in physics think incorrectly the same you think.

Where have I ever said one way or the other? Do I categorically assert all particles are points? No. Do I categorically assert all particles have extension in some way? No. The fact is no one knows, including you. Mathematical models which idealise the particles into points have clear predictive power. Whether or not they are truly accurate in the regard is an open question.

Just, in contrary to you, PhD, I am a brilliant master.

Except you cannot get your work published, you don't have any proper research experience, your work cannot stand up to scrutiny, you are demonstrably ignorant of mainstream science, by your own admission some of your predictions are contradicted by experience and you are functionally innumerate.

2.Did you prove that you, the same as many Professors (see the articles in Internet), completely do not understand the confinement? I proved that it is true.

You asserted as claim about it. A claim which you have not substantiated.

Did you understand the difference between the word effective and the term “effective” before I explained it to you?
Did you claim that the word effective in physics means ALWAYS approximate?
Do you still claim that the effective theories concern the low energy only?

Seriously, you want to argue terminology? Do you think mathematicians saying field refer to an open area covered in grass? Do you think a magma is referring to molten rock coming out of a volcano?

Terminology and technical definitions use some words differently to their every day layperson meaning. Field, Reals, group, complex, magma, all of them have both a technical mathematical meaning and a layperson meaning. Similarly for various physics terminology. 'Effective theory' is just such an example. Whenever 'effective theory' appears in a textbook it means what I've explained it to mean, it refers to an approximation obtained by particular simplifying limits of a more complicated model. For example, the Euler equations are an effective model for the Navier-Stokes equations, as you obtain the Euler equations by simplifying the Navier-Stokes equations.

2. It is not true that I decoded your real name. You did it – see the previous posts. I just wrote the “beautiful” verse. I should not write the verse but you still provoke me. You still are trolling (99%). If there was democracy then you should be banned long ago because you behave as a bandit. The 99% of your posts are the personal attacks. It is because you know that I proved many times your incompetence and it will be in Internet forever. On the other hand, there indeed my Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of the ultimate theory and it will be in Internet forever as well.

Sylwester, I am absolutely certain your work will never be considered anything other than laughable by the mainstream community. I stand by that position, I have no problem with it being on the internet 'forever'. My explanations of the internal inconsistency of your claims will be there too. Your admission you make predictions contradicted by experiments will be there too. Your hypocrisy in complaining I'm throwing ad homs and yet you call me a 'bandit' and 'ill' will also be there.

Like I said, you are aware of my name and thus it is simple enough for you to check my papers are actually published. Since simply rephrasing Wikipedia would result in a paper being rejected your assertions are false and you could check for yourself. But instead of doing that you just lie.

What you fail to realise is that even if I'd not got a PhD, not got a degree, not got anything published, not got a research job, that wouldn't alter one little bit the problems with your claims. The amount, originality and quality of my work has no bearing on your work. Trying to shift the discussion that way is another blatently dishonest act by yourself. I notice how you keep ignoring my question about whether you think your constant dishonest about mainstream physics is going to just be ignored by mainstream researchers if you presented your work to them (to us)? Do you think when a string theorist sees you lying about string theory, and lying about how your work supposedly explains it, that that will just be ignored and he'll (or she'll) start working on your ideas? How do you think mainstream researchers would react if they see you lying about their research areas? You lied about string theory with me, including dualities and the holographic principle, and all it did was make my view of you, a dishonest hack, all the more cemented. Do you think other researchers will react differently? If I lied about your work would you be more or less willing to work on string theory? A lot less I'd imagine, yet you act in the way you do.

If you are such the 'brilliant master' why are you spamming your work here? Why aren't you instead publishing in journals? Are you even bothering to send your work to journals or have you just given up, accepting that you'll never get published, never be taken seriously, never contribute anything to science and so instead you spend all your time desperately trying to advertise your claims in fringe sections of forums? I can only conclude that in 30 more years you plan to still be as much of a failure then as you are now.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, I wrote as follows: “Did you claim that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points? If the answer is YES (you claimed it) then you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and it is true that many great mathematicians in physics think incorrectly the same you think.”, and then you wrote following question:

Where have I ever said one way or the other?

AlphaNumeric, I will prove ONCE AGAIN how big liar you are, how incompetent PhD you are, how easily you change your claims. Moreover, your memory is scattered. This means that your opinion means nothing.

In my thread titled “Fundamental Space” on PhysForum on my question: Can infinite number of sizeless points have length, area, or volume? you answered as follows.

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric @ Jul 4 2007, 11:36 AM)
3. Yes

In this thread you wrote many posts from which follows that you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and that you completely do not understand the mathematics and PHYSICS of infinities.

I waste my time for discussion with you because you mostly are trolling, you do not understand what you are reading, you are the undereducated PhD and you cannot concentrate on scientific discussion i.e. you behave as an ill person. Moreover, you proved many times that you are liar and dishonest person. I should not discuss with ill and dishonest person so Arrivederci Roma. Just such “discussion” has no sense.

I will write next posts when there will appear my next papers or new experimental data consistent with my theory such as it is with the charge radius of proton.
Here I should emphasize once more that my theory starts from the 7 parameters only (not from about 30 as it is in the Standard Model). My theory does not contain approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters as it is in the Quantum Theory of Fields. Moreover, ONLY my Everlasting Theory leads to origin of the fundamental physical constants.

 

[rpenner]

1.
Did you claim that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points? If the answer is YES (you claimed it) then you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and it is true that many great mathematicians in physics think incorrectly the same you think. Just, in contrary to you, PhD, I am a brilliant master.

This question is about physical objects and mathematical points.

Where have I ever said one way or the other? Do I categorically assert all particles are points? No. Do I categorically assert all particles have extension in some way? No. The fact is no one knows, including you. Mathematical models which idealise the particles into points have clear predictive power. Whether or not they are truly accurate in the regard is an open question.

This answer is about the physics of the universe, the physics models of man, and the state of empirical knowledge.

AlphaNumeric, I wrote as follows: “Did you claim that we can build physical objects from sizeless/mathematical points? If the answer is YES (you claimed it) then you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and it is true that many great mathematicians in physics think incorrectly the same you think.”, and then you wrote following question:

AlphaNumeric, I will prove ONCE AGAIN how big liar you are, how incompetent PhD you are, how easily you change your claims. Moreover, your memory is scattered. This means that your opinion means nothing.

In my thread titled “Fundamental Space” on PhysForum on my question: Can infinite number of sizeless points have length, area, or volume? you answered as follows.

Since the original question is about the relation of mathematical points to mathematical lines, surfaces and volumes, AlphaNumeric's opinion then does not contradict his answers now.

(Jul 4 2007, 08:32 AM)

(Jul 4 2007, 09:11 AM)
Can you build mathematical line from sizeless points?

Absolutely, categorically, completely yes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuum_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_(geometry)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_(mathematics)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimension

This is stuff taught to children in school. I knew the notion of points forming lines and areas etc when I was 12 or 13. I learnt about sequences and series when I was 16. I learnt about cardinality and construction of the Real number line when I was 18.

While I did a maths degree, which specifically covered such things, I know plenty of physicists who know of such things, so it's not like you've been living in a mathematical vacuum. You should have come across this stuff before. Geometry is a fundamental notion. Quantum mechanics is built upon zero dimensional points. Space-time in relativity is a continuum of points.

(Jul 4 2007, 11:36 AM)

(Jul 4 2007, 11:56 AM)
1. Is segment built of sizeless points?
2. Has this segment length?
3. Can infinite number of sizeless points have length, area, or volume?

1. Yes
2. No
3. Yes

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I can see that you, rpenner, as well do not understand the problem. So I will explain the problem once again.

Assume that we have a continuous mathematical or physical segment of a line which length is L. We divide it in half and next each part again in half and so on. It is obvious that the sum of the lengths of all parts is still equal to the L. It is obvious that never length of a part will be equal to zero because the sum is still equal to the L. Just to introduce length of a segment we must apply a granular geometry. The sizes of the geometric granules can be infinitesimal but cannot be equal to zero.

Assume that rpenner is right and that we can build a segment from sizeless points so area and volume as well. Of course, such assumption is nonsensical because then nature can be created from nothingness. This means that there could be the invalidation of the law of conservation of energy. We can see that we obtain the idiotic conclusion.

We can assume in mathematics that there is infinite number of divisions that lead to the sizeless/mathematical points but such virtual/abstract process has no sense in physics because in physics such process is NON-REVERSIBLE! Such is the difference between mathematics and physics.

It is obvious that both rpenner and AlphaNumeric do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics. Many, many scientists do not understand the difference so they must apply the simplifications, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters to FIT the theoretical results obtained within the Quantum Theory of Fields to experimental data. I call such incompetence the childish game.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I should add something very important to my last post. The infinite divisions of a segment of a line that lead to the sizeless mathematical points cause that INFORMATION of the segment disappears! It as well is the nonsensical conclusion because in physics information cannot disappear. It is the second proof that there is big difference between mathematics and physics that concerns the infinities. Just in physics we must start from granular geometry.

 

[rpenner]

I can see that you, rpenner, as well do not understand the problem. So I will explain the problem once again.

Assume that we have a continuous mathematical or physical segment of a line which length is L. We divide it in half and next each part again in half and so on. It is obvious that the sum of the lengths of all parts is still equal to the L. It is obvious that never length of a part will be equal to zero because the sum is still equal to the L. Just to introduce length of a segment we must apply a granular geometry. The sizes of the geometric granules can be infinitesimal but cannot be equal to zero.

That is addressed by measure theory. "[A] measure is a function that assigns a non-negative real number or +∞ to (certain) subsets" of a line, for example. Any countable collections of points has zero Lebesgue measure, while Lebesgue measure agrees with you example of subdividing a line segment. One doesn't contradict each other.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lebesgue_measure

Assume that rpenner is right and that we can build a segment from sizeless points so area and volume as well. Of course, such assumption is nonsensical because then nature can be created from nothingness. This means that there could be the invalidation of the law of conservation of energy. We can see that we obtain the idiotic conclusion.

This is not a rational argument. Your introduction of "process" for example is a mental model of a task of building space without correspondence to any phenomena in physics or operation in mathematics.

We can assume in mathematics that there is infinite number of divisions that lead to the sizeless/mathematical points but such virtual/abstract process has no sense in physics because in physics such process is NON-REVERSIBLE! Such is the difference between mathematics and physics.

AlphaNumeric's PhysForum opinion was with regard to mathematics, so your talk about physics, thermodynamics and process has no grounds to be considered a rebuttal of the position stated.

It is obvious that both rpenner and AlphaNumeric do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics.

We are not the one who is trying to blur the line between them.

Many, many scientists do not understand the difference so they must apply the simplifications, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters to FIT the theoretical results obtained within the Quantum Theory of Fields to experimental data. I call such incompetence the childish game.

Nothing's more childish than the full-on pouty-face and public sulk that you are doing here.

I should add something very important to my last post. The infinite divisions of a segment of a line that lead to the sizeless mathematical points cause that INFORMATION of the segment disappears! It as well is the nonsensical conclusion because in physics information cannot disappear. It is the second proof that there is big difference between mathematics and physics that concerns the infinities. Just in physics we must start from granular geometry.

How ignorant are you? What are the possible intersections of two (Euclidean) straight lines:
Case I, the lines are parallel so the null set.
Case II, the lines are co-incident so are the same line and the intersection is the whole line.
Case III, the lines are neither parallel nor co-incident so intersect in a point. If we call the lines A & B, and the point of intersection C, we are saying C is part of A and also part of B. C, by itself, does not allow you to learn of the existence of either line because a point is fundamentally different from a finite segment of a straight light. A single point cannot by itself be extended to generate a particular line. Thus C is a part of A and C is a part of B and being part of both A and B, it does not have enough information of itself to let you distinguish its relationship with A from its relationship with B. Indeed, once we know A & B, we can construct successive angle bisectors which are additional lines which go through C as their only intersection with A and B, and these angle bisectors can be created without limit. Thus C, a point, is a part of a potential infinite number of lines.

Thus Euclid teaches points are part of lines. Furthermore there is no other part. A generalized intersection between piecewise straight lines is a collection (perhaps empty) of points, finite straight line segments and infinite line segments. Given a finite or infinite straight line segment we may always elect to intersect it with a line in a way that intersects in exactly one point. So lines, line segments and piece-wise straight line segments are all seen to be constructed from points. Euclid requires no extra ingredient.

Analytic geometry and Algebraic geometry are pretty explicit that there is no extra ingredient. (Possibly curved) lines are collections of points that can be parameterized with a single degree of freedom -- they are 1-dimensional collections of points.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Rpenner, I will not discuss with persons who claim that I am not right but they cannot prove it. Just such “discussion” is nonsensical. Do you indeed assume that readers cannot see your desertion?

Your last post is about the pure mathematics, not about the mathematics which can be applied in physics to describe Nature!

We are not the one who is trying to blur the line between them.

The cited your sentence concerns the mathematics and physics. There is mathematics that Nature never realizes. Such mathematics starts from the sizeless points. And there is mathematics realized partially by Nature that starts from granules i.e. non-zero mathematical points which have physical interpretation. This means that your sentence is partially not valid. Do you can see the very important nuances?

For example, physicist never will claim that mathematical or physical line can be composed from sizeless points. For example, when the zero represents the sizeless points then for a good physicist always is

0 + 0 + 0 + ……… + 0 = 0

You claim that the above sum of infinite number of sizeless points can be 0 or L or 2L or infinity. We can see that such mathematics always is incoherent. When someone assumes that the bare fermions are the sizeless mathematical points then theories that start from such initial conditions always are the mathematically incoherent theories. In such theories there are the infinities, for example, the infinite energy of electromagnetic field produced by an electron. In such theories we lose the INFORMATION about the bare fermions. I think that Leonard Susskind understands very well my position. Such theories never lead to experimental data. To fit within such theories the theoretical results to experimental data, mathematicians apply the science fiction i.e. the approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges, as for example the renormalization, and there appear the free parameters. For example, Feynman wrote that due to the renormalization we cannot prove mathematical cohesion of the QED. All theories formulated within the Quantum Theory of Fields that start from the assumption that the bare fermions are the sizeless points, are the mathematically INCOHERENT theories. My Everlasting Theory is the mathematically coherent theory, so the very simple theory as well, because starts from granules that radius is not equal to zero.

Now about the PHYSICAL spacetime
There can be two states of a volume: nothingness or fully filled. Define the space as the fully filled volume. Define the R as the ratio of volume of space to the total volume i.e. to the sum of volumes of nothingness and space. There are the three possibilities:
R = 0: it is the nothingness i.e. the timeless volume,
R = 1: it is the timeless space,
0 < R < 1: it can be the living spacetime when the pieces of space are moving.
My theory shows that today the R for our spacetime is R = 1.3245•10^-58 whereas the mean speed of the pieces of space is 2.386344•10^97 m/s. Only such initial conditions lead to experimental data.

We can see that the pieces of space are the tachyons that have the inertial mass only (i.e. volume). Such tachyons cannot emit something so they are the gravitationally massless granules. The gas composed of the tachyons I call the modified Higgs field. Due to the phase transitions of the modified Higgs field there was created the Einstein spacetime. The above initial conditions lead to conclusion that the Einstein-spacetime components are moving with the speed of light c. It means that my theory shows the origin of the speed of light. My theory shows origin of all basic physical constants and leads to the conclusion that for the Einstein spacetime the inertial mass is equal to the gravitational mass. It is the postulate applied in the General Theory of Relativity (the GR). The modified Higgs field is beyond the GR.

Recapitulation
Theories that start from sizeless points are the mathematically incoherent theories.
To describe our Universe we must start from non-sizeless and moving pieces of space.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

In this thread you wrote many posts from which follows that you completely do not understand the difference between mathematics and physics and that you completely do not understand the mathematics and PHYSICS of infinities.

Funny, you complain I don't understand the difference between maths and physics yet your question and my answer to it was in regard to a mathematical construct, not a physical one. The mathematical concept of a continuum, an line interval, is built up from points. Hence why I answered 'yes' to your question. Do I think that physical objects and particles are built from dimensionless points? I don't know. Such an interpretation allows us to model many quantum systems but it has problems.

I waste my time for discussion with you because you mostly are trolling, you do not understand what you are reading,

Oh the irony. You have just shown you didn't understand what your own question was about and you're willing to misrepresent me.

You never respond to my question about whether you think your lying about mainstream physics will go unnoticed by other mainstream physicists. I noticed your lies and misrepresentations and I know very little quantum field theory compared to the big names. Do you think they'll just ignore how you misrepresent them and their work? You don't like people misrepresenting you but you do not mind doing it to others. I guess the reason you don't respond is you know the answer but don't want to admit it. Your lies and dishonesty mean no one will take you seriously, if you had something valid to say you'd not need to lie. But you cannot admit this, hence why you avoid the question.

Your silence says it all.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I write this post only to show the AlphaNumeric hypocrisy. In my thread titled “Fundamental Space” on PhysForum on Jul 4 2007, 06:31PM AlphaNumeric wrote as follows.

…..Sylwester is claiming otherwise. He's claiming that mathematically a point must have non-zero size. This is false. Physically, he might be right, mathematically he's flat out wrong.

Euclidean geometry, the kind everyone learns as kids with lines and planes, is built upon the notion of zero dimensional points. It works. The infinite number of points in an interval is well understood. …..

So once more: Mathematics within which we claim that a line consists of infinite number of sizeless points is incoherent. Such mathematics does not act correctly. Such mathematics is non-reversible. I proved it.

Can you answer following questions?
What is length of infinite number of “tangent” sizeless points arranged in single file along a line? Is it L or 2L or infinity? Is there one result only? If not then such mathematics is incoherent. And physics shows why such mathematics is incoherent. The transition from an interval to infinite set of sizeless points due to infinite number of divisions causes that WE LOSE FOREVER INFORMATION ABOUT THE INITIAL INTERVAL.

So once more: A mathematical theory is coherent theory when mathematical points have size not equal to zero. They, of course, can be infinitesimal but their size cannot be equal to zero. Transition to zero destroys beauty of both mathematical and physical theories. We must reject such theories from mathematics and physics because they lead astray. Within such incoherent theories, to fit theoretical results to experimental data, “scientists” apply approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters. Such theories are the science fiction. Such theories NEVER will lead to the lacking part of the ultimate theory, for example, to origin of the basic physical constants. My Everlasting Theory is free from such science fiction.

 

[AlphaNumeric]

It's good of you to lay out so explicitly how you misrepresent me, showing that I was clearly talking about mathematical concepts. Furthermore, the notion of a continuum, such as the interval [0,1] (ie all the numbers from 0 to 1, inclusive) is something many people are familiar with. The size of the interval is 1, ie ||[a,b]|| = b-a, while the size of any single number is 0, since on a set theoretic level a = [a,a] so then ||[a,a]|| = a-a = 0.

The notion of an uncountable infinity of elements to make up a continuous set is something a fair few people struggle to grasp. Your " 0+0+....+0 = 0 therefore you're wrong" attempt at refutation shows you haven't understood it. Any introductory book on analysis will explain it to you but we both know you won't read any book I suggest as you have no desire to expand your knowledge, only to delude yourself. But well done on showing you cannot grasp stuff high school students can manage. It only helps to show just how deluded you are and how laughably bad your knowledge and capabilities are. You call into question the abilities or output of Rpenner and myself but at every turn you show how poor or failed your own work is.

Of course if you don't think I'm worth listening to then why don't you submit your work to a journal? You've been spamming your work on forums and to professors via email for decades, which will never get your work any real attention. Afraid to do it, lest you get rejected by people whose education and physics knowledge you cannot dismiss, as you attempt to dismiss mine? I managed to get published multiple times and if you're so superior to me you shouldn't have any trouble. Funny how you're still stuck on forums whining.....

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

AlphaNumeric, you understand nothing.
0 = 1/∞. This formula has no physical meaning. Infinite number of divisions of a segment which length is equal to 1 leads to the infinite set composed of sizeless points. The reversible formula looks as follows 0 * ∞ = 0. It is because due to the transition from the segment to the infinite number of sizeless points we lose the information about the length of the segment. In physical world information cannot be lost so in coherent mathematics as well. Just such transition causes that we obtain incoherent theory.
Each mathematical or physical theory is non-reversible, i.e. incoherent theory, when the applied methods cause that information is lost. In such theories appear infinities so to eliminate them we must apply the approximations, mathematical tricks/dodges and free parameters.
AlphaNumeric, you are unable to prove that my above sentences are untrue so you should stop to write the nonsense.
It is idiocy to assume that the bare fermions are the sizeless/mathematical points. Such theories are incoherent, for example, the QTFs.

 

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Here

http://vixra.org/author/sylwester_kornowski ,

you can find my new paper titled “Particle Physics and Cosmology Need New Methods”. Theories applied in particle physics and cosmology, are very messy. New methods are based on origin of the half-integral spins. This spin is characteristic for all scales/sizes (there are the neutrinos, nucleons, electrons, and so on) and for all types of interactions (bosons consist of the half-integral-spin fermions), even for the fifth force i.e. the entanglement (it is the third long-distance interaction). This suggests existence of succeeding phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime based on the half-integral-spin constancy. This theorem should be accepted as axiom. Such a theory shows a statistical interpretation of the canonical quantum mechanics and only such a theory leads to origin of the basic physical constants. This theory leads also to the superluminal interpretation of the quantum mechanics and abundance of the deterministic mass.