At this point, my personal feelings are that this entire thread should be cesspooled... however, I don't have the background to say definitively if there is any sort of factual evidence or discussion here. As for the thinly veiled insults and baiting... it seems the two of you have a history of goin after one another. How about this - instead of attacking each other, focus on the simple facts.
Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'
- Thread starter Sylwester Kornowski
- Start date
That's actually fairly accurate - you can just about guaruntee that if Paddoboy starts a thread somewhere, DMOE will post in it. I can give you several examples in the back room if you want. It's something I've been quietly observing and had been going to raise with you via PM soon enough so we could discuss how we were going to handle it in this particular portion of the forum.
Truthfully... I think perhaps these kind of discussions shouldn't happen in the back room anymore - perhaps what is needed is some bright, cleansing light to help route out the blight that is the rampant dishonest and absurdity in these here forums...
or perhaps I'm just in a pissy mood and not thinking straight and on the verge of taking actions that would likely be irresponsible and inappropriate...
Yeah... I'm gonna go with "A little of column A, a little of column B"... g'night ya'll
Awesome idea Kittamaru! I back that idea 100%!
Paddoboy, you do not discuss with me and about my scientific arguments. Just you discuss with yourself. At first you write the nonsense about my theory and next you comment the nonsense. I claim that indeed there is something wrong with you.
So once more: My theory leads to the initial conditions applied in the two leading mainstream theories i.e. the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics. Just these two leading theories are, in generally, correct. But they are incomplete because they lead to the singularities and infinities. It is obvious that it causes that these theories are mathematically incoherent. For example, the renormalization we can write as follows: infinity minus infinity is equal to strictly determined constant. But we know that mathematics says something different: infinity minus infinity is equal to arbitrary number. It causes that in theories applying renormalization must appear free parameters i.e. parameters not derived within the theories (they are taken from ceiling or experimental data). It means that the theories are incomplete. They are incomplete due to the nonsensical assumption that the bare particles are sizeless and my theory is about the incompleteness of the mainstream theories. The phase transitions of the Higgs field, described within the Everlasting Theory, just eliminate the incompleteness in the mainstream theories.
My theory is not against the leading mainstream theories - my theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory which eliminates the incompleteness in the leading mainstream theories and which eliminates the big number of wrong interpretations that follows from the incompleteness. Moreover, my theory solves the all basic problems we cannot solve within the leading mainstream theories due to their incompleteness.
Moreover, the internal structure of the bare particles that follows from my phase transitions of the Higgs field, results from the Kasner solution (1921) described within the General Relativity! Someone can say that the Kasner solution does not concern matter i.e. the objects which have gravitational mass whereas the bare particles have gravitational mass. It is true but the Kasner solution concerns the Higgs field composed of the gravitationally massless pieces of space. Next, Nature copies the fundamental structure, which follows from the Kasner solutions, in the higher scales. Just the Kasner solution concerns the internal structure of the objects which size is close to the Planck length i.e. it concerns the LOWER LIMIT in the General Relativity.
So once more: my theory is not against the leading mainstream theories. My theory eliminates from the leading mainstream theories the obvious incompleteness, wrong interpretations and free parameters and solves the tens of basic problems which cannot be solved within the leading mainstream theories due to their incompleteness.
Now a few sentences about the mainstream cosmology you such unconditionally love.
It is obvious that the true theory of inflation must lead to origin and values of the physical constants and must lead to the initial conditions applied in the leading mainstream theories!!!
The mainstream inflation, which is the part of the mainstream cosmology, does not lead to the physical constants, origin of the inertial and gravitational masses, does not lead to masses of the quarks and leptons, and so on. This leads to conclusion that the mainstream inflation is at least incomplete. In my opinion, the mainstream inflation is nonsensical because it cannot even say what caused the exit from the black hole state i.e. what caused the big bang. Just the mainstream inflation is a nonsensical speculation.
Of course, there was the big bang, there was the inflation, there was the exit from the black-hole state which caused the ‘soft’ big bang and expansion of our Universe (such succession is correct). Such new cosmology leads to origin and values of the physical constants and to the initial conditions applied in the leading mainstream theories and it is described within the Everlasting Theory.
So once more: The leading mainstream theories, i.e. General Relativity and Quantum Physics, are, generally, the correct theories and my theory leads to the initial conditions applied in these theories. The Everlasting Theory is not against these two theories. The Everlasting Theory is just the lacking part of ultimate theory. On the other hand, the mainstream inflation, which is the part of the mainstream cosmology, is nonsensical. Just it does not solve problems it should solve i.e. it does not lead to the physical constants and the initial conditions applied in General Relativity and Quantum Physics. Just my inflation is the true inflation.
Paddoboy, if you once more will write the nonsense about my theory without any justification, I will write that you are a liar and very dishonest man.
Arrivederci Roma
You can write what you damn well like.
If your hypothesis [not theory] had anything going for it, you would not have seen the need for 32 pagers of tooing and froing on this forum, you would not have had the need to just vainly dismiss other expert opinions on your hypothesis, you would follow the scientific methodology, [see the 12 points in For Alternative theories thread] and you would get it peer reviewed.
Your hypothesis, whether you like it or not, exists as reality within you.
It is not accepted by mainstream cosmology, and no amount of conspiracy claims about mainstream ganging up on you and your hypothesis will change that.
Let me just comment on that.
I do realise that GR is limited for the reasons you state....quite obviously correct.
Now if all else you say is true, please for the love of sanity, get it peer reviewed, and let's not hear your nonsense about mainstream cosmology ganging up on you.
You obviously will be asked many questions, and will need to run the gauntlet.
You need to accept that.
Last edited:
And please for your own benefit see if what you claim, what you hypothesise, can align with the following 12 points.
If you can say yes, great! You are well on the way to a Nobel prize!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists
And please don't feel deflated or in any way embarrassed about having to be told by a layman about how to go about this.
All i'm trying to do is apply common sense and logic.
If you can say yes, great! You are well on the way to a Nobel prize!
http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?141223-For-the-alternative-theorists
And please don't feel deflated or in any way embarrassed about having to be told by a layman about how to go about this.
All i'm trying to do is apply common sense and logic.
Paddoboy, you still write the nonsensical posts. For example, can you prove that my Everlasting Theory is not a theory? Of course, you cannot. Just you still write the nonsense without any justification. It is because you are very dishonest person. You are too lazy to read it so I will write the definition for you.
“Theory is an attempt to explain a certain class of physical phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of some primitive assumptions.”
In my theory there are the primitive assumptions, physical and mathematical descriptions of tens physical phenomena that follow from the primitive assumptions and hundreds theoretical results which are consistent or very close to experimental data and observational facts. Do you understand now how stupid are your posts? It is a pity that the stupidity does not hurt.
Paddoboy, before writing the nonsensical posts, you should read the different opinions concerning the peer-review idea and its history. For example, there was the period in physics free from the peer-review process during which there appeared brilliant theories.
Richard Horton editor of the British medical journal “The Lancet”, said (2000 year; you can find it in Wikipedia):
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
My theory it is today 321 pages A4. Just it is the book.
All can see on vixra and my website that my theory leads to the initial conditions from which starts the quantum physics but it is free from the incoherent renormalization, it is free from the nonsensical many-worlds interpretation, it is free from the free parameters and gives better results that the mainstream quantum physics. This means that I claim that Nature needs quantum effects to act correctly but I removed from the mainstream quantum physics the all nonsensical ideas, especially the sizeless bare particles.
So one day I had sent one of my papers to leading journal. And reviewer (Nobel-prize winner) wrote something like this.
It was very hard to formulate the today quantum physics so I must reject your paper.
What it means? It means that the Scientific Board of the Journal will publish only papers in which the nonsensical/incoherent ideas play the leading part. So what should be my conclusion? It is such obvious – just I waste my time for sending my revolutionary theory to the peer-review journals. I assumed that I must publish my book on my website and next on vixra. If it is correct then sooner or later I will be the winner. I will be the winner because only a layman cannot see that the Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory. There is not an alternative for this theory. Just the Newtonian book is today the famous book without the peer-review.
It is obvious that there will be the barking people, especially laymen who understand nothing. But it is obvious that I should ignore it. Just the aim is very important.
This Section is devoted to the alternative theories so it is the good place to write about my revolutionary theory which already is published on my website and on vixra. All can read it and verify my descriptions.
“Theory is an attempt to explain a certain class of physical phenomena by deducing them as necessary consequences of some primitive assumptions.”
In my theory there are the primitive assumptions, physical and mathematical descriptions of tens physical phenomena that follow from the primitive assumptions and hundreds theoretical results which are consistent or very close to experimental data and observational facts. Do you understand now how stupid are your posts? It is a pity that the stupidity does not hurt.
Paddoboy, before writing the nonsensical posts, you should read the different opinions concerning the peer-review idea and its history. For example, there was the period in physics free from the peer-review process during which there appeared brilliant theories.
Richard Horton editor of the British medical journal “The Lancet”, said (2000 year; you can find it in Wikipedia):
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
My theory it is today 321 pages A4. Just it is the book.
All can see on vixra and my website that my theory leads to the initial conditions from which starts the quantum physics but it is free from the incoherent renormalization, it is free from the nonsensical many-worlds interpretation, it is free from the free parameters and gives better results that the mainstream quantum physics. This means that I claim that Nature needs quantum effects to act correctly but I removed from the mainstream quantum physics the all nonsensical ideas, especially the sizeless bare particles.
So one day I had sent one of my papers to leading journal. And reviewer (Nobel-prize winner) wrote something like this.
It was very hard to formulate the today quantum physics so I must reject your paper.
What it means? It means that the Scientific Board of the Journal will publish only papers in which the nonsensical/incoherent ideas play the leading part. So what should be my conclusion? It is such obvious – just I waste my time for sending my revolutionary theory to the peer-review journals. I assumed that I must publish my book on my website and next on vixra. If it is correct then sooner or later I will be the winner. I will be the winner because only a layman cannot see that the Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory. There is not an alternative for this theory. Just the Newtonian book is today the famous book without the peer-review.
It is obvious that there will be the barking people, especially laymen who understand nothing. But it is obvious that I should ignore it. Just the aim is very important.
This Section is devoted to the alternative theories so it is the good place to write about my revolutionary theory which already is published on my website and on vixra. All can read it and verify my descriptions.
SO, in other words, the entire scientific community is against you?
Yes, during times of zero peer review, many incredible theories were developed... and many of them were PROVEN to be incredibly WRONG. There was also a time during which drilling a HOLE through someones head was the medically acceptable way to relieve a headache... we now know that to be incredibly stupid... much like accepting every theory anyone who claims to know something about science tries to put out there.
There is a REASON stuff gets peer reviewed... it's because the person coming up with the theory is often so desperate for it to be right that they will, subconsciously, skew test results and other data to accommodate their theory.
Yes, during times of zero peer review, many incredible theories were developed... and many of them were PROVEN to be incredibly WRONG. There was also a time during which drilling a HOLE through someones head was the medically acceptable way to relieve a headache... we now know that to be incredibly stupid... much like accepting every theory anyone who claims to know something about science tries to put out there.
There is a REASON stuff gets peer reviewed... it's because the person coming up with the theory is often so desperate for it to be right that they will, subconsciously, skew test results and other data to accommodate their theory.
To answer your post I should once more cite Richard Horton editor of the British medical journal “The Lancet”:
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
It is obvious that Richard Horton is not against the peer review process. I am as well not against this process. But Richard Horton, many other scientists and I claim that the peer review system does not act correctly. It is obvious because Horton’s journal is a part of this system.
In my opinion, reviewers should not be lawyers in their own matters. It is obvious that such system must lead to corruption. For example, the authors of renormalization should be not reviewers of my theory which proves that Nature does not need the renormalization. The same concerns the authors of mainstream inflation and authors of the model of the baryons at low energy.
Reviewers should investigate only whether a paper is coherent, free from mistakes and conformable to the methodology. It can do, for example, young mathematicians independent from authors who can be against new theories.
Today hypocrisy is everywhere. There is the political corruption, there is the economical corruption and there as well is the scientific corruption and Richard Horton wrote about the last corruption.
I have two aims: to prove that the Everlasting Theory is indeed the lacking part of ultimate theory and, on base of it, to convince that the peer-review system should be changed to eliminate the corruption described by Richard Horton and many others.
“The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review was any more than just a crude means of discovering the acceptability - not the validity - of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and frequently wrong.”
It is obvious that Richard Horton is not against the peer review process. I am as well not against this process. But Richard Horton, many other scientists and I claim that the peer review system does not act correctly. It is obvious because Horton’s journal is a part of this system.
In my opinion, reviewers should not be lawyers in their own matters. It is obvious that such system must lead to corruption. For example, the authors of renormalization should be not reviewers of my theory which proves that Nature does not need the renormalization. The same concerns the authors of mainstream inflation and authors of the model of the baryons at low energy.
Reviewers should investigate only whether a paper is coherent, free from mistakes and conformable to the methodology. It can do, for example, young mathematicians independent from authors who can be against new theories.
Today hypocrisy is everywhere. There is the political corruption, there is the economical corruption and there as well is the scientific corruption and Richard Horton wrote about the last corruption.
I have two aims: to prove that the Everlasting Theory is indeed the lacking part of ultimate theory and, on base of it, to convince that the peer-review system should be changed to eliminate the corruption described by Richard Horton and many others.
Oh for Christ's sake, I've already asked you...don't make this about me! That's just you taking the easy way out.
The whole scientific community sees your hypothesis as nonsense...
Explain that to me.
Or are you going to once again cry "victim" and decry the peer review system.
ps: I won't be answering anymore of your posts, as we are obviously on a merry-go-round, and inflated egos and delusions of grandeur are running rampant.
In summing, until you submit to the system, you have nothing of consequence, other then what I have already mentioned. Plus of course, 32 pages of unsupported unreviewed claims is enough.
Oh, and also Sylwester, as to calling me dishonest, I would not be so hypocritical if I was you...
Besides originally posting this in science threads, and having it eventually moved to alternative theories, your own less then honest actions are highlighted at post 421, on page 22...and I really have barely checked out the 32 pages, but rest assured, if I find anymore inconsistencies, I will remind you of them.
Besides originally posting this in science threads, and having it eventually moved to alternative theories, your own less then honest actions are highlighted at post 421, on page 22...and I really have barely checked out the 32 pages, but rest assured, if I find anymore inconsistencies, I will remind you of them.
Paddoboy, you ‘beat foam’. It leads astray.
Your bigotry causes that you write more and more the nonsensical posts without any justifications.
You should read more, for example, about tachyonic fields in modern physics, about the hidden variables in quantum mechanics, and so on.
In the Everlasting Theory is as follows. The entanglons responsible for the quantum entanglement and the pieces of space the Higgs field consists of (their properties differs from properties of the tachyons described within the mainstream theories), are the superluminal objects. Their size is smaller that the Planck length so the theory of them is beyond the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics. Information carried by the superluminal objects cannot be measured by any detector because the detectors are built up of the luminal Einstein-spacetime components which size is close to the Planck length. But it is obvious that Nature needs the superluminal objects the very distant points in the wave functions could very quickly communicate. Only then the quantum mechanics can be the COHERENT theory. And it is in the Everlasting Theory.
Recapitulation
Most important is the fact that information carried by the superluminal objects cannot be detected by any detector. Quantum Physics needs such objects because only then this theory can be the coherent theory i.e. can be non-local.
You are very lazy man. You did not read my posts concerning the superluminal neutrinos so you still write the same nonsense about them. It is obvious that properties of neutrinos STILL are unknown. I wrote many times that neutrinos generally are the luminal particles. The Everlasting Theory shows that their radius is a little smaller than the Planck length so the physics of the internal structure of the neutrinos is BEYOND the leading mainstream theories. The Everlasting Theory shows as well that the neutrinos can be the superluminal particles ONLY when are produced in the weak decays INSIDE BARYONS. The theory leads to the EXACT distance between the neutrino and photon fronts observed on Earth for the SN1987A supernova. The superluminal neutrinos were eliminated in the last experiments. The neutrinos in the last experiments were from the weak decays OUTSIDE the baryons. We must wait for next explosion of a supernova to test whether my theory of superluminal neutrinos is correct. The theory of superluminal neutrinos is not the foundations of the Everlasting Theory. This theory is based on the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field and it leads to the physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data.
Paddoboy, you write the nonsense because you assumed that the mainstream theories fully describe Nature. Such assumption is most stupid. It is obvious that there will appear new experimental data and new observational facts which will lead beyond the mainstream theories. And I claim that they will lead to the Everlasting Theory i.e. the lacking part of ultimate theory.
Within the mainstream theories there appear only the speculations concerning the dark energy and the dark matter. They do not lead to origin and values of the physical constants, they do not lead to the initial conditions in the incomplete mainstream theories, they give wrong values for masses and spins of protons and neutrons, they do not lead to the mass of electron, and so on. We can say that the all basic problems are not solved within the mainstream theories. It is obvious that there will be a revolution in particle physics and cosmology and I claim that the Everlasting Theory will be the foundations of the revolution.
Your bigotry causes that you write more and more the nonsensical posts without any justifications.
You should read more, for example, about tachyonic fields in modern physics, about the hidden variables in quantum mechanics, and so on.
In the Everlasting Theory is as follows. The entanglons responsible for the quantum entanglement and the pieces of space the Higgs field consists of (their properties differs from properties of the tachyons described within the mainstream theories), are the superluminal objects. Their size is smaller that the Planck length so the theory of them is beyond the General Relativity and the Quantum Mechanics. Information carried by the superluminal objects cannot be measured by any detector because the detectors are built up of the luminal Einstein-spacetime components which size is close to the Planck length. But it is obvious that Nature needs the superluminal objects the very distant points in the wave functions could very quickly communicate. Only then the quantum mechanics can be the COHERENT theory. And it is in the Everlasting Theory.
Recapitulation
Most important is the fact that information carried by the superluminal objects cannot be detected by any detector. Quantum Physics needs such objects because only then this theory can be the coherent theory i.e. can be non-local.
You are very lazy man. You did not read my posts concerning the superluminal neutrinos so you still write the same nonsense about them. It is obvious that properties of neutrinos STILL are unknown. I wrote many times that neutrinos generally are the luminal particles. The Everlasting Theory shows that their radius is a little smaller than the Planck length so the physics of the internal structure of the neutrinos is BEYOND the leading mainstream theories. The Everlasting Theory shows as well that the neutrinos can be the superluminal particles ONLY when are produced in the weak decays INSIDE BARYONS. The theory leads to the EXACT distance between the neutrino and photon fronts observed on Earth for the SN1987A supernova. The superluminal neutrinos were eliminated in the last experiments. The neutrinos in the last experiments were from the weak decays OUTSIDE the baryons. We must wait for next explosion of a supernova to test whether my theory of superluminal neutrinos is correct. The theory of superluminal neutrinos is not the foundations of the Everlasting Theory. This theory is based on the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field and it leads to the physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data.
Paddoboy, you write the nonsense because you assumed that the mainstream theories fully describe Nature. Such assumption is most stupid. It is obvious that there will appear new experimental data and new observational facts which will lead beyond the mainstream theories. And I claim that they will lead to the Everlasting Theory i.e. the lacking part of ultimate theory.
Within the mainstream theories there appear only the speculations concerning the dark energy and the dark matter. They do not lead to origin and values of the physical constants, they do not lead to the initial conditions in the incomplete mainstream theories, they give wrong values for masses and spins of protons and neutrons, they do not lead to the mass of electron, and so on. We can say that the all basic problems are not solved within the mainstream theories. It is obvious that there will be a revolution in particle physics and cosmology and I claim that the Everlasting Theory will be the foundations of the revolution.
The mainstream picture is that quantum fluctuations took place already during the inflation. Such assumption leads to separate bubble universes with different laws of physics. Such multiverse is infinite.
Now Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology and his colleagues assumed that quantum fluctuations were impossible until inflation ended (“Quantum twist could kill off the multiverse”). Such model leads to finite multiverse with universes the laws of physics are the same. And it is exactly what we can find in the Everlasting Theory.
The Everlasting Theory leads to the finite Cosmos (the finite multiverse) containing universes with the same laws of physics and the same physical constants. During the inflation the CLASSICAL Higgs field partially transformed into the Einstein spacetime which is the scene for the quantum fluctuations. You can read it in my papers or read my last posts in this thread.
Now Sean Carroll at the California Institute of Technology and his colleagues assumed that quantum fluctuations were impossible until inflation ended (“Quantum twist could kill off the multiverse”). Such model leads to finite multiverse with universes the laws of physics are the same. And it is exactly what we can find in the Everlasting Theory.
The Everlasting Theory leads to the finite Cosmos (the finite multiverse) containing universes with the same laws of physics and the same physical constants. During the inflation the CLASSICAL Higgs field partially transformed into the Einstein spacetime which is the scene for the quantum fluctuations. You can read it in my papers or read my last posts in this thread.
In May and June there appeared on vixra my four papers.
The Origin and Evolution of the JKCS 041 Galaxy Cluster
Abstract: On the basis of the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I described the origin and evolution of the JKCS 041 galaxy cluster. Here are answered following questions. Why many of the oldest most massive galaxies reside in clusters? How massive galaxies formed and evolved and why some of the giant galaxies are dormant or quiescent? What is origin of the X-rays emitted by the JKCS 041 galaxy cluster and why we observe it just now?
The Duality of Relativity
Abstract: Due to the interaction of the Higgs field with the Einstein-spacetime components and neutrinos all matter consists of, in the Higgs field are produced the gradients/gravitational-fields. The Higgs field consists of the non-gravitational tachyons which speed is about 89 powers of ten higher than the speed of light in “vacuum” so the gravitational lines of forces look as spokes stiffly welded on to masses. When a mass rotates then the lines rotate as well. The speed of light is the speed in relation to a frame of reference which is in the rest in relation to rotating (or not) system of the divergent lines of gravitational forces. It means that the Michelson-Morley experiment is not the evidence against the aether theory so number of phenomena which can be described within the special relativity correctly is smaller than it is assumed, especially it concerns cosmology. The lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, shows as well that not all masses are relativistic: the masses of neutrinos, the masses of Einstein-spacetime components and of galaxies in the rest in relation to the local expanding dark energy are invariant. And finally, due to the conservation of the ground states of the Higgs field and Einstein spacetime, sometimes, contrary to the special relativity, the speed of light can be not invariant. It all leads to the duality of relativity.
The Foundations of Cosmology
On the base of the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I answered the fundamental questions in cosmology. It is some recapitulation of my previous papers. I answered following questions. What is the origin of the Multiverse? Where do the laws of physics come from? Were the quantum fluctuations possible during the inflation and what is the dark energy? Why physical constants are constant? What is the correct interpretation of the Einstein formula E = mcc and why the Multiverse/Cosmos is flat? What is origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry? Will the Multiverse be dead? What is origin of time in the General Relativity?
From Stable Boundary of Multiverse to Inertia
During the inflation the classical Higgs field partially transformed into the Einstein spacetime which is the scene for the quantum fluctuations. The quantum fluctuations were impossible until inflation ended. The succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field (it consists of the classical, non-relativistic tachyons) and strictly determined radius of our-Cosmos/Multiverse (it is the finite multiverse composed of the expanding universes with the same laws of physics and physical constants) lead to the origin of inertia.
Most important is the fact that due to the irreversible processes during the inflation and the internal structure of the Higgs field, Einstein spacetime and bare particles, masses of particles and the speed of light in “vacuum” can be Newtonian or Einsteinian.
The Origin and Evolution of the JKCS 041 Galaxy Cluster
Abstract: On the basis of the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I described the origin and evolution of the JKCS 041 galaxy cluster. Here are answered following questions. Why many of the oldest most massive galaxies reside in clusters? How massive galaxies formed and evolved and why some of the giant galaxies are dormant or quiescent? What is origin of the X-rays emitted by the JKCS 041 galaxy cluster and why we observe it just now?
The Duality of Relativity
Abstract: Due to the interaction of the Higgs field with the Einstein-spacetime components and neutrinos all matter consists of, in the Higgs field are produced the gradients/gravitational-fields. The Higgs field consists of the non-gravitational tachyons which speed is about 89 powers of ten higher than the speed of light in “vacuum” so the gravitational lines of forces look as spokes stiffly welded on to masses. When a mass rotates then the lines rotate as well. The speed of light is the speed in relation to a frame of reference which is in the rest in relation to rotating (or not) system of the divergent lines of gravitational forces. It means that the Michelson-Morley experiment is not the evidence against the aether theory so number of phenomena which can be described within the special relativity correctly is smaller than it is assumed, especially it concerns cosmology. The lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, shows as well that not all masses are relativistic: the masses of neutrinos, the masses of Einstein-spacetime components and of galaxies in the rest in relation to the local expanding dark energy are invariant. And finally, due to the conservation of the ground states of the Higgs field and Einstein spacetime, sometimes, contrary to the special relativity, the speed of light can be not invariant. It all leads to the duality of relativity.
The Foundations of Cosmology
On the base of the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I answered the fundamental questions in cosmology. It is some recapitulation of my previous papers. I answered following questions. What is the origin of the Multiverse? Where do the laws of physics come from? Were the quantum fluctuations possible during the inflation and what is the dark energy? Why physical constants are constant? What is the correct interpretation of the Einstein formula E = mcc and why the Multiverse/Cosmos is flat? What is origin of the matter-antimatter asymmetry? Will the Multiverse be dead? What is origin of time in the General Relativity?
From Stable Boundary of Multiverse to Inertia
During the inflation the classical Higgs field partially transformed into the Einstein spacetime which is the scene for the quantum fluctuations. The quantum fluctuations were impossible until inflation ended. The succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field (it consists of the classical, non-relativistic tachyons) and strictly determined radius of our-Cosmos/Multiverse (it is the finite multiverse composed of the expanding universes with the same laws of physics and physical constants) lead to the origin of inertia.
Most important is the fact that due to the irreversible processes during the inflation and the internal structure of the Higgs field, Einstein spacetime and bare particles, masses of particles and the speed of light in “vacuum” can be Newtonian or Einsteinian.
Now, physicists claim that maybe spacetime is a superfluid with very low viscosity.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/
The Everlasting Theory says that at the beginning of the inflation, the Higgs field (I refer it to as the Newtonian spacetime as well) was the liquid with very high dynamic viscosity but with very low Reynolds number about 10^-19 (see my book, page 13, formula (1)).
It concerns the Higgs field in which are produced the gravitational fields. During the inflation, the Higgs field partially transformed into the superfluid Einstein spacetime which is directly associated with the three forces described within the Standard Model (electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions). If not the very high dynamic viscosity of the Higgs-field components, the partial transformation of the Higgs field into the Einstein spacetime would be impossible. If not the very high dynamic viscosity of the Higgs-field components, the Einstein-spacetime components could not acquire their gravitational masses - they acquire it due to the interactions with the Higgs field.
Since the properties of the present-day Higgs field and the Einstein spacetime are very different so unification of the gravity with the other forces within the same methods is impossible. We can unify the gravity with the other forces only via the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field which lead to the superfluid Einstein spacetime. And it is done within the Everlasting Theory which leads to the basic physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data.
The Einstein-spacetime components can interact due to the confinement and/or quantum entanglement - due to such interactions there are produced the particles, the Higgs boson as well.
So once more: Since properties of the Higgs field (the Newtonian spacetime) and the superfluid Einstein spacetime are very different so unification of the four forces within the same methods is impossible. Applying the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field, we only can describe the partial transition of the Higgs field into the superfluid Einstein spacetime.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superfluid-spacetime-relativity-quantum-physics/
The Everlasting Theory says that at the beginning of the inflation, the Higgs field (I refer it to as the Newtonian spacetime as well) was the liquid with very high dynamic viscosity but with very low Reynolds number about 10^-19 (see my book, page 13, formula (1)).
It concerns the Higgs field in which are produced the gravitational fields. During the inflation, the Higgs field partially transformed into the superfluid Einstein spacetime which is directly associated with the three forces described within the Standard Model (electromagnetism, weak and strong interactions). If not the very high dynamic viscosity of the Higgs-field components, the partial transformation of the Higgs field into the Einstein spacetime would be impossible. If not the very high dynamic viscosity of the Higgs-field components, the Einstein-spacetime components could not acquire their gravitational masses - they acquire it due to the interactions with the Higgs field.
Since the properties of the present-day Higgs field and the Einstein spacetime are very different so unification of the gravity with the other forces within the same methods is impossible. We can unify the gravity with the other forces only via the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field which lead to the superfluid Einstein spacetime. And it is done within the Everlasting Theory which leads to the basic physical constants and hundreds theoretical results consistent or very close to experimental data.
The Einstein-spacetime components can interact due to the confinement and/or quantum entanglement - due to such interactions there are produced the particles, the Higgs boson as well.
So once more: Since properties of the Higgs field (the Newtonian spacetime) and the superfluid Einstein spacetime are very different so unification of the four forces within the same methods is impossible. Applying the succeeding phase transitions of the Higgs field, we only can describe the partial transition of the Higgs field into the superfluid Einstein spacetime.
On vixra I answered following questions concerning the evolution of massive galaxies.
Why many of the oldest most massive galaxies reside in clusters?
Is the gravitational redshift important for the E/S0 galaxies?
What is contribution of the kinematical Doppler effect of Special Relativity to the total cosmological redshift?
Is the acceleration of expansion of the Universe an illusion?
Why the massive red evolved galaxies are already in place at high redshift?
Why the red-sequence has a boundary at z = 0.44?
When and how were produced the first-generation stars the E/S0 galaxies consist of?
What was the origin of a rapid build-up of the red sequence and why it is quiescent i.e. why there do not appear numerous new stars i.e. what are the phenomena responsible for the powerful shut-down mechanism of new-star formation i.e. why E/S0 galaxies evolve in a purely passive way?
Why evolution of the most massive E/S0 galaxies was quicker for lower redshift i.e. why number of massive red galaxies is greater for redshift smaller than 0.7?
Why there is a significant population of massive blue galaxies at high redshift?
Most important is the fact that for the massive galaxies, the total redshift is the sum of gravitational and kinematical redshift. The dynamical redshift in the mainstream cosmology is an analog to the gravitational redshift whereas there is not an analog to the kinematical redshift that appears in the Everlasting Theory. It causes that the distant Type Ia supernovae are fainter than it follows from the dynamical-redshift mainstream cosmology. It leads to the illusion that there is an acceleration of expansion of our Universe.
In the near massive galaxies, due to their long evolution, we can neglect the gravitational redshift in relation to the kinematical redshift. It causes that all galaxies in groups of galaxies have almost the same redshift.
Why many of the oldest most massive galaxies reside in clusters?
Is the gravitational redshift important for the E/S0 galaxies?
What is contribution of the kinematical Doppler effect of Special Relativity to the total cosmological redshift?
Is the acceleration of expansion of the Universe an illusion?
Why the massive red evolved galaxies are already in place at high redshift?
Why the red-sequence has a boundary at z = 0.44?
When and how were produced the first-generation stars the E/S0 galaxies consist of?
What was the origin of a rapid build-up of the red sequence and why it is quiescent i.e. why there do not appear numerous new stars i.e. what are the phenomena responsible for the powerful shut-down mechanism of new-star formation i.e. why E/S0 galaxies evolve in a purely passive way?
Why evolution of the most massive E/S0 galaxies was quicker for lower redshift i.e. why number of massive red galaxies is greater for redshift smaller than 0.7?
Why there is a significant population of massive blue galaxies at high redshift?
Most important is the fact that for the massive galaxies, the total redshift is the sum of gravitational and kinematical redshift. The dynamical redshift in the mainstream cosmology is an analog to the gravitational redshift whereas there is not an analog to the kinematical redshift that appears in the Everlasting Theory. It causes that the distant Type Ia supernovae are fainter than it follows from the dynamical-redshift mainstream cosmology. It leads to the illusion that there is an acceleration of expansion of our Universe.
In the near massive galaxies, due to their long evolution, we can neglect the gravitational redshift in relation to the kinematical redshift. It causes that all galaxies in groups of galaxies have almost the same redshift.