Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Where is antimatter? This question is incorrect. The properties of the Einstein spacetime cause that there appear the virtual electron(matter)-positron(antimatter) pairs. These particles are not black holes in respect of some interactions (gravitational, weak, electromagnetic or strong). But when energy of collisions of electrons with positrons is sufficiently high then the electron-positron pairs transform into antiproton-proton pairs or other antibaryon-baryon pairs. The Everlasting Theory shows that electron can transform into antiproton whereas positron into proton but proton cannot transform into positron or antiproton into electron. Why? It is because the protons are the black holes in respect of the strong interactions! In centre of proton arises the black hole in respect of the weak interactions as well. The entanglement of the components of electric charge of proton causes that the components cannot be in greater distance as it is in positron. This causes that electric charge of positron can transform into electric charge of proton but this process is irreversible.

We can see that protons are the antimatter of electrons i.e. the matter. So the strictly correct question should be as follows. Why more positrons transformed into protons than electrons into antiprotons? And the answer is as follows. The Kasner solution obtained within the General Theory of Relativity is obligatory for a flat anisotropic model of the Einstein spacetime! This means that in the Einstein spacetime can appear vortices with left-handed or right-handed internal helicity. The left-handed internal helicity have the nucleons so the protons as well. The antiprotons have right-handed internal helicity. This leads to conclusion that in the left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime, probability of creation of protons from positrons is higher than creation of antiprotons from electrons.

Recapitulation
The origin of matter and antimatter in our Universe is as follows. The protons are the antimatter whereas the electrons are the matter. Due to the properties of a left-handed vortex in the Einstein spacetime (from which our Universe arose) and origin of the interactions, the number of electrons is the same as protons but mass of antimatter (nucleons) is much greater than mass of matter (electrons).
The Everlasting Theory shows that mass density of the Einstein spacetime (it is invisible for detectors) is much, much higher than the visible matter and dark matter so today our Universe is flat and it is the observational fact. Dark energy is the surplus mass density of the Einstein spacetime in the left-handed vortex. Anisotropy of this vortex disappeared just at beginning of expansion of our Universe – in my book I described the reason of this phenomenon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Neutrino speed once more

I must emphasize that there are big mistakes in design of experiments to detect the superluminal neutrinos. In the LNGS experiments (May 2012), all measurements of neutrino speed were consistent with the speed of light. Why such results are incorrect? In the above mentioned experiments the 17-GeV muon neutrino beam consisted of grouped bunches with a bunch width of about 2ns. The width 2ns is too short to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed higher than 1.000000002c i.e. with speed higher than superluminal neutrinos emitted by the supernova SN 1987A. On the other hand, the accuracy of the measurements in the LNGS experiments was too low to detect superluminal neutrinos moving with speed 1.000000002c.

My explanation is as follows.
1.
I wrote many times that ONLY neutrinos from the weak decays INSIDE the strong fields in baryons are superluminal.
2.
Lifetimes of the particles which decay due to the weak interactions inside the strong fields are as follows:
2.2•10^-6s for the muons and then their maximum speed is 1.000071c,
2.5•10^-7s for the relativistic pions and then their maximum speed is 1.0000239c,
1.7•10^-15s for the W bosons and then their maximum speed is 1.000000002c.

We can see that, for example, for the 17-GeV, most frequently the superluminal neutrinos appear about 250ns from the beginning of collisions of the nucleons (it is for the lifetime 2.5•10^-7s). This means that the width of bunches about 2ns and the 4 batches per extraction separated by about 300ns and the batches consisted of 16 bunches separated by about 100ns lead astray.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The latest experimental data concerning the transverse energy in Pb-Pb collisions at 2.76 TeV obtained by using the CMS detector at the LHC, are consistent with my Everlasting Theory. This theory can be found on my website or viXra. On the viXra, there is the proof that it was published on March 6, 2012. It was published on my website earlier than the 7 months ago.

The experimental data are as follows. The pseudorapidity density increases by a factor of 2.17 ± 0.15 from sqrt(s) = 200 GeV to 2.76 TeV – see page 4 here

http://physics.aps.org/featured-article-pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.109.152303

On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02.
Moreover, on the page 54 I wrote as follows. “There is a threshold for EN=2.672 TeV. For energy higher than 2.672 TeV, the NSD energy becomes higher than the energy of protons that have an atom-like structure on the lateral surface of liquid-like plasma. This means that the external layers of liquid-like plasma can separate from it explosively.”

The energy 2.76 TeV is higher than the threshold energy 2.672 TeV. The latest experimental data prove that the cited sentences are correct as well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I know maths isn't your strong point but if the experiment says the value is between 2.02 and 2.32 and you claim 1.93 then you are not consistent with the experiment. You're the wrong side of the lower limit. Or do you not realise 1.93 < 2.02? Should I slow down, am I going too fast for you?

The fact you're be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. Congratulations on continuing to achieve nothing.

 

AlphaNumeric, I can say about you the same. The fact you are be so ludicrously, blatantly, openly wrong and dishonest is staggering. You do not understand mathematics as well. But contrary to you, I proved it many times – see my posts.

All thinking people understand following sentence excepting you because as usually you do not understand what you are reading: “On the other hand, my formula (161) on page 54, leads to a factor of 1.93 which is close to the lower limit 2.02.” It is obvious for all that my result 1.93 is the 96 % of the lower limit. In high energy regime such divergence we can neglect. Just my theoretical result is beautiful. Very frequently within the Standard Model we obtain theoretical results which differ by an order of magnitude from the experimental data. And it is the true tragedy. BTW, what value of the factor predicted the Standard Model?

So one more, my theoretical result concerns the high-energy regime and it is obvious that such result (1.93) is almost ideal. We can find in a little earlier paper the experimental data which differ a little from the 2.17 ± 0.15, for example 2.35 ± 0.15 (May 11, 2012). This means that my result can overlap with more exact experimental result. Can you see that the lower limit in the earlier result (2.20) is greater than in the last (2.02)?

I am honest because in the previous post I wrote ALL needed results.

 

Nobody gives a hoot what your explanation is since there's no empirical reason to believe what you say. Plenty to believe you're assertions are wrong.

 

The word “to believe” is good in religion, not in physics.
The facts are as follows. Within one coherent model I proved as follows.
1.
There should not be in existence a remnant (i.e. neutron star) due to the supernova SN 1987A explosion. It is consistent with the observational facts. Somebody can claim that there can be neutron star but for some reason it is invisible. All can see that such statement is a part of religion, not of physics.
2.
The time distance between the fronts of the most speedy superluminal neutrinos and photons should be about 3 hours. It is consistent with the observational facts. Somebody can claim that the time distance follows from structure of the supernova but such model needs much more parameters than my theory.
3.
My theory shows that neutrinos from the weak decays outside the strong fields inside the baryons are moving with the speed c. Only the neutrinos from the weak decays inside the strong fields are superluminal. The number density of the superluminal neutrinos depends on number density of the colliding baryons. It means that for the energy about 20 GeV only not numerous neutrinos are superluminal. Most of them are moving with the speed c. This means that to detect the superluminal neutrinos we must detect thousands of the neutrinos. Now, you can read the last published papers concerning the superluminal neutrinos. They detected tens neutrinos, not thousands, even not hundreds.

We should detect WHOLE pulse reaching the Gran Sasso. There should be a big peak for the c and very low and broadened superluminal peak. Moreover, we should detect big number of neutrinos because only not numerous neutrinos are superluminal.

I am sure that as all my predictions on base of the Everlasting Theory, also the predictions concerning the superluminal neutrinos will be correct. I know it because my model is coherent and leads to the time distance 3 hours for the supernova SN 1987A which OVERLAPS with the observational data.

 

I am absolutely certain I've contributed more to maths, physics and engineering in my life than you have in your much longer one. I get paid to do things like quantum mechanics, to bring workable solutions to real world problems.

Doesn't cut it. The error bars put the value between 2.02 and 2.32. If we were to accept 1.93 then the error bars would have to cover that value. You're making up an excuse why you can ignore the error bars. If we can measure something to within a 1% accuracy then you cannot then say "It's okay, I'm 97% of the measured value!" because you're be outside the experimentally allowed region. That's precisely what is going on here, you're rewording things to talk about percentages all in an attempt to hide the fact you missed the experimental window. Anything less than 100% of the lower limit is, by definition, inconsistent with the data, just as anything more than 100% of the upper limit is inconsistent with the data. Trying to make excuses is extremely dishonest, you show what kind of 'scientist' you are, ie a failed one.

Nice try at changing the subject. What someone else has to say is entirely irrelevant of whether or not what you have to say is value. Your claims are experimentally falsified. Again.

Ideal? Ideal by whose definition? If it's science then your results are not ideal, they contradict experiments. You're making up your own delusional little world. Again.

The fact the second experimental results are lower doesn't mean the results will continue to move down. Rather it would be that when you combine the two data sets from the two experiments you'll find the region now consistent with experiments if made much smaller (more experiments means better data means smaller error bars). In the case of the experiments you mention both of them allow values between 2.20 and 2.32. That's even further from your value of 1.93 than between 2.02 and 2.32 of the second experiment! You're making it more obvious you're wrong!

 

AlphaNumeric, as usually, you write about unimportant things. In my posts are all needed results. All could see that 1.93 < 2.02. You write about things which you cannot prove as well. Just a ble, ble, ble… Can you see that you combined the two results to formulate “better justification”? But such motive is comic because the central value in the earlier result is 2.35 whereas in the last 2.17 i.e. over time, the central value is closer to my result. But it is not important! Just my theoretical result is beautiful. I know that you write the nonsense because you are frustrated that my Everlasting Theory predicted such good result in the high-energy regime.

But you can write about important things. For example, what value for the factor predicted the SM? Why my prediction that in the high-energy regime there is the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions (0.1139) is still valid? Does the running coupling for the strong interactions prove that the General Theory of Relativity is PARTIALLY incorrect? And so on. Are you able to discuss such important problems? Or you can only write about not important things?

 

Pointing out your 'everlasting theory' contradicts more experiments is unimportant?

Then you admit you're inconsistent with exp

What can't I prove?

You're obviously unfamiliar with experimental data, a fact I've commented on many times before. If you knew anything about measurements you'd know that it's quite common to get some measurements which are a little lower than the true value and some a little higher. The important thing is that they have overlapping regions, which is the case here. I suggest you look up things such as drawing samples from distributions. It's something children are taught in school so I don't expect you to know about it.

If you knew anything about how to combine different experimental results together you'd know that the two sets of measurements you mention combine to give an average further from your result and a region of error smaller than either one separately. This only further demonstrates your work is wrong.

It isn't important you admit your prediction is outside of experimental limits? It isn't important you're experimentally falsified? I think you need to look up what 'important' means.

Your theoretical result is not beautiful and more importantly, it isn't right!

You are inconsistent with experimental data. How can I be frustrated by that? I'm laughing at you.

You're attempting to change the subject and further more, in doing so you show how you don't understand the SM or GR or experiments. But then you've already shown that.

You're outside of experimental bounds. Twice. Your work has failed. Again. Now you've made it so obvious everyone can see it. Well, everyone but you because you're deluded about your competency. The 30 years of accomplishing nothing should have given you a clue.

 

AlphaNumeric, no one sentence in your last post is worthy of notice. Just there are the claims without proofs.

Professors teach students since 1964 that nucleons consist of the up and down quarks but they cannot prove it i.e. they cannot define exact masses of these quarks and show that such masses lead to the masses and spins of the nucleons. Can you see the 48 years without a proof? Without my theory, it will last forever. My theory shows that there are in existence the sham quarks but we cannot calculate the masses of the nucleons from the masses of the sham quarks. The nature acts in different way so I claim that the mass and spin problems of the nucleons will be never solved without my theory. This follows from the fact that scientists do not know the real properties of the Einstein spacetime.

Professors teach students that laws of physics do not depend on choice of frame of reference. It is true only when we neglect the real internal structure of baryons and internal structure of the Einstein spacetime. In reality, there is the baryons/spacetime coupling which causes that mass and strong interactions depend on speed of baryons in dominating gravitational field. Just for different co-moving observers baryons do not look always the same i.e. the laws concerning the strong interactions are not the same. This follows from the fact that due to the pion/baryon/spacetime coupling, mass of virtual carriers of strong interactions we cannot calculate from the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. This leads, for example, to the asymptote for the running coupling for the strong interactions (0.1139) in the high-energy regime. This problem does not concern electrons because speed of electrons in relation to gravitational field is always equal to zero! There “is moving” the wave function which describes the state of an electron. Origin of relativistic mass of electrons is not the same as of baryons whereas the neutrinos are the non-relativistic particles i.e. their mass does not depend on their speed (it follows from the fact that the spacetime inside neutrinos, which consists of my closed strings, is closed!).

The nature is very simple but it is much, much interesting than it is postulated in the mainstream theories.

 

In this post I will prove as follows.
1.
Why Masterov is not right?
2.
Why we cannot merge gravity with quantum physics for baryons?

1.
On pages 35 and 36 in my book is Paragraph titled “The properties of Newtonian and Einstein spacetimes lead to relativistic mass”. I this paragraph I proved that the Einstein formula for relativistic mass is DIRECTLY associated with the law of conservation of spin and properties of the Einstein spacetime. Just I derived from the law of conservation of spin the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. This means that there is the relation between relativistic mass of a NOT virtual particle and its speed consistent with the Einstein formula. Observed divergences between energy of external field and relativistic mass or speed of a particle follow from emission of energy by the particle and field.
2.
There are two formulae for spin.
The first concerns the stable structures m(relativistic)v(spin)r = spin = constant. We can see that when we accelerate a stable particle then due to the law of conservation of spin (in my book I described origin of this law), the spin speed decreases so relativistic mass increases according the Einstein formula.
The second formula concerns the virtual particles which are energy vortices. For example, neutral pions consist of two entangled such vortices. For such virtual particles is obligatory the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle: energy(relativistic) • lifetime = spin. We can see that when we accelerate a baryon then its spin speed decreases, so increases the lifetime of the energy vortex and due to the law of conservation of spin its relativistic energy decreases!!!!! This leads to conclusion that for the strong interactions appears the running coupling. The exact calculations lead to the asymptote 0.1139 in the high-energy regime. We can see that a co-moving observer with an accelerated baryon, on base of measured running coupling can calculate speed of the baryon in relation to the Einstein spacetime!!! This means that the Principle of General Covariance is sometimes not valid. This is the reason why we cannot merge quantum physics (especially the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle) with the gravity. Just for the VIRTUAL carriers of the strong interactions, the Uncertainty Principle is inconsistent with the Einstein formula for relativistic mass. The Everlasting Theory shows that the baryons consist of a stable structure inside which appear the virtual particles (virtual energy vortices) which behave out of accord with the Einstein formula for the relativistic mass.

Such model leads to the ultimate equation which ties masses of carriers of all interactions (6 or 7): fundamental, entanglement, gravitational, electric + magnetic, weak and strong (see formula (280) in my book, page 128.

 

Denial doesn't make the flaws in your claims go away.

Flawed logic. Calculating the masses precisely isn't needed to prove the particles exist. We've just discovered a new particle at CERN, we have the evidence, yet we still haven't narrowed down specific properties of it, including its mass to a high precision.

Up and down quarks can be observed inside nuclei by deep inelastic scattering. Furthermore many of their properties can be calculated using hadron mass towers and jet events. The reason we cannot precisely calculate their rest masses is due to QCD gluon effects being very hard to calculate.

Simply being dishonest, about the SM and about your own claims, doesn't make you right.

Considering you have not even worked with the raw experimental data but only have worked with how the Standard Model interprets that data your entire approach is undermined. You claim you can accurately predict the value of the strong coupling compared to experiment but that value is extracted from experiments using the Standard Model. If the SM is wrong then the value of the coupling you're trying to match is also wrong, which makes your results wrong. This simple logic is something I've explained before but which you haven't managed to grasp. Perhaps you do grasp it and you're just doing as you're doing with the other data which contradicts your claims, you're just ignoring it. You're wrong on multiple fronts.

Tell me, do you think you're going to convince the research community you're correct when it's demonstrable you're a liar? Do you think by lying about the SM you're going to convince someone working on the SM to stop working on it and to work on your ideas? I can immediately see the flaws in your claims, just as anyone familiar with the SM can. If someone sees you're dishonest they are not going to stop doing their work to consider your work. If you have any real desire to influence the mainstream community, to get your 'everlasting theory' to be mainstream, then you're going to need to convince researchers, real physicists, you're worth listening to. You might be able to lie about the SM to non-physicists, you might be able to lie about the SM to most people on forums, but that doesn't cut it with actual physicists. You're so used to just talking BS to people who cannot identify your BS that you think it's a legit way to argue your case. Sure, you might have had some success convincing a few people on forums you're onto something but that isn't going to happen with actual physicists if you cannot stop with your dishonesty.

Part of being a good scientists, a reasonable rational person even, is being able to take on board criticism and to engage in honest informed discussion to defend your position. I'm a researcher and each and every day I have discussions with other researchers about my work and their work. We correct one another, provide constructive criticism and sometimes have to accept our work is wrong. A good researcher will tell you that quite often the biggest learning experiences they have had have been when someone has demolished an idea of theirs. Not being able to accept it when such things occur almost completely destroys someone's ability to do science. You (and pretty much every hack here with a pet theory) seem incapable of this. You know your work is perfect. Farsight knows his work is worth multiple Nobel Prizes. Mazulu knows aether exists. Not only can none of you justify your claims but you refuse to acknowledge any slip up or error. It seems like you're all after some kind of existential justification. None of you are in it for the betterment of science, of humanity, but rather personal glory. Farsight has categorically stated he was after personal accomplishment, to aim for the big problems. The majority of actual scientists are in it to chip away at the mountain of unknown things in science and if perhaps we do something big then great but it isn't the reason d'etre for us. And it's that mentality which allows a good scientist to not only listen to criticism and correction but to welcome it. It's a trait almost universally absent from internet hacks, you included.

You've been doing this for 3 decades, getting nowhere. Do you plan to be doing this in another 30 years? In 2042 are you still going to be on forums, having accomplished nothing? Because that's where you'll be if you cannot become honest.

 

Your sentence: “Calculating the masses precisely isn’t needed to prove the particles exist” is correct whereas your conclusions are incorrect. Within my Everlasting Theory, I calculated the masses of the sham quarks as well (see pages 92 and 93 in Chapter “Reformulated Quantum Chromodynamics”: the sham up quark has mass 2.23 MeV, down 4.89 MeV, strange 106 MeV, charm 1267 MeV, bottom 4190 MeV and top 171.8 GeV) but I proved that the valence sham quark-antiquark pairs appear when nucleons interact. Their masses follow from the atom-like structure of baryons. This means that the masses of the sham quarks are some analogy to the spectrum of an atom and are not responsible for the atom-like structure of baryons, the same as the structure of atoms is not directly associated with the transitions of electrons between the allowed “orbits”. The atom of hydrogen is not composed of its spectrum and the baryons are not composed of the sham quarks but they exist!

Conclusion
We never calculate the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons from properties of the sham up and down quarks (but they exist) because we mistake the cause with effect.
The 48 years without existence of such calculations prove that I am right. Moreover, within my theory, I calculated the masses, spins and magnetic moments of nucleons from the atom-like structure of baryons and the results are beautiful.

AlphaNumeric, you still do not understand difference between applied methods and definitions. I apply different methods but the same definitions so I can compare my results with the results obtained within the SM and experimental data. See, for example, the definition of the pseudorapidity density in my book (pages 53 and 54). At the beginning, the asymptotic freedom led to the value ZERO in the high-energy regime whereas my theory leads to the asymptote 0.1139. Next, the SM was modified but I claim that such modification is incorrect and the future experiments will prove it.

AlphaNumeric, you write still the same nonsense about my theory, you are big liar and most dishonest person on this Forum. You write about my 30 years. It is not true, just 41 years but it is and will be always less than the 48 years when physicists cannot distinguish structure of particles from their interactions and it is the loss of face.

 

This shows how poor you are at basic logic and how dishonest you are. Someone's inability to answer a question now doesn't mean they'll never answer it. By your logic because in 1900 we didn';t have an explaination for the precession of Mercury then we'd never get one. Then along came relativity.

Shame they are logically inconsistent and even ignoring that by your own admittance they are outside of experimental bounds!

You still don't understand. The strong coupling constant isn't measured directly, it is extracted from raw data using equations from the Standard Model. Since you say these equations are wrong then it means the value of the strong coupling constant given in the literature is wrong. Therefore your work, which says the SM is wrong, also implies the value for the strong coupling constant is wrong. Yet you claim you match what the SM says. Contradiction.

For example, you keep saying the quarks don't really exist and it's a sham. Quark models are what physicists use to work out the value of the strong coupling constant given scattering data. If the underlying model is wrong then outputs from the model are almost certainly going to be wrong. You simultanously say the strong coupling constant outputs from the SM are wrong and right.

I've explained this many times, you don't grasp it. You should find out how the strong coupling constant is computed.

You didn't even know the difference between asymptotic freedom and deconfinement until I told you. Then you changed your work and started claiming you could correctly predict things about them.

So I was wrong about 30 years, you've actually wasted more! That only illustrates my point more! You've spent 35% more time on this than I've been alive and you've accomplished nothing. We were talking about precisely this stuff last year, you've gotten nowhere.

Well done

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

AlphaNumeric, it is incredible that you still write the tremendous nonsense and that on this Forum tolerate your dishonest.

Now is 2012. They still cannot explain the perihelion precession of Venus whereas within the Everlasting Theory I did it (see page 111, theoretical result is 204.0’’). I calculated the value for Mercury as well.

But most important is the fact that you and other mathematicians in physics since 1948 do not understand difference between structure of particles and their interactions. You know, it is already in the curriculum of the secondary school. Now I will try to show you why since 1964 (48 years to 2012) theoretical physicists who are engaged in particle physics cannot calculate the basic physical quantities such as masses and magnetic moments of protons and neutrons. I am doing it because you as usually try to swindle readers.

There is structure of an atom i.e. the nucleus composed of nucleons and the allowed states of electrons.
There are the electromagnetic interactions of an atom carried by the photons emitted during the transitions of the electrons between the allowed states. There appears the photon spectrum.

Do you understand my simple explanation? There is structure of an atom and spectrum associated with interactions. You cannot calculate, for example, mass of an atom from spectrum. Moreover, structure of the atom DOES NOT CONSISTS OF THE PHOTON SPECTRUM.

Now about the protons and neutrons
The mass spectrum of the quarks and mass spectrum of the mesons follow from the interactions of the baryons! This means that similarly as for atoms, we cannot claim that nucleons consist of the sham up and down quarks. The sham quarks appear when nucleons interact. This is tremendous mistake when someone claims that structure of nucleons is directly associated with the relativistic quarks.
So once more, we will never calculate from the properties of the up and down quarks the masses and magnetic moments of nucleons. It is true because such physical quantities are directly associated with structure of nucleons (see pages 16-21 in my book).
Within no one theory, which applies only 7 parameters (such number of parameters is in my Everlasting Theory; because the basic physical constants are the parameters as well then in the SM is at least 20 parameters) we can calculate masses and magnetic moments of nucleons with such high accuracy as in my theory (see page 19):
938.2725 MeV
939.5378 MeV
+2.79360
-1.91343
We can see that indeed the obtained theoretical results are beautiful.

AlphaNumeric, there is something wrong with you. You still do not understand foundations of physics. I derived whole my theory from seven parameters. Their dimensionalities are directly associated with the International System of Units. The interactions are defined the same as in the SM. There are the sources of interactions and carriers of interactions. There is the speed of light and Planck constant. And the running coupling is undimensional. Do you understand that the global picture of the interactions is the same as in the SM and experiments? Do you understand that we can calculate, for example, ratios of physical quantities for different energies? And so on. Frequently in the mainstream theories physicists add new parameters and/or add new mechanism to fit the theoretical results to the experimental data. It is a childish game. Since 1997 I never have added new parameter to my theory. You are liar claiming that I changed picture of strong interactions in my book. Over time, I add new paragraphs. At first, there were described the strong interactions in the low-energy regime and it is very easy to prove that it was before I started to discuss with you and that I did not change the picture. You are just big liar. Moreover, the picture of the strong interactions in the high-energy regime HAS NOTHING with the nonsense you wrote in your posts. Just my theory says that the confinement is not in existence! The confinement added physicists to the old picture of the strong interactions to fit the theoretical results to the new experimental data. Professor Barbara Jacak and Dr. Vigdor said as follows:

Below is the link to article published in The New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/16/science/16quark.html

Dr. Vigdor said “…..but the quark-gluon plasma does not act the way theorists had predicted” whereas Professor Barbara Jacak, of the State University at Stony Brook, speaking for the team that made the new measurements, said “This is not your father’s quark-gluon plasma”.

AlphaNumeric, now all can see how dishonest you are. I proved many times that you are liar who try to swindle others.
Whereas particle physics theorists wasted 48 years trying to prove that nucleons are built of the relativistic up and down quarks. They never will prove it or they will add new parameters but I explained that such “physics” is a childish game.

AlphaNumeric, “Do not judge others, lest you yourself shall be judged”. All your swindles are in your posts and it will be forever.

 

All orbits naturally precess. That's what GR predicts. JPL calculation

Venus = 8.618 +or- .041 arc seconds per century

Earth = 8.618 + or - .012

Mars = 1.351 + or - .001

He's judging your bad physics and misstatement of facts.

 

I can see that you do not understand what you are reading as well. Observational fact concerning the perihelion precession of Venus is about 204 arc seconds per century. You wrote about the GR correction only! Do you understand the difference?

 

So you're saying science doesn't understand what the external perturbations are? Get a clue.

 

I'm willing to give further explaination for anything I've said, I have nothing to hide in that regard.

Provide evidence Venus's motion isn't explained accurately by current methods.

Nice strawmanning. This is part of the problem, you don't know what the mainstream actually said because you don't bother to find out properly. This occured particularly so when you used to go around whining about the mainstream's take on asymptotic freedom and confinement. You hadn't bothered (and even if you had I consider you intellectually incapable of understanding it anyway) to find out what those are in the mainstream and thus conflated the two. I had to repeatedly explain the difference to you, at which point you amended your 'everlasting theory'. Funny, shouldn't an everlasting theory already be right?

In this case you're misrepresenting what the mainstream says about spectra etc. No one says 'the structure of the atom consists of the photon spectrum'. The structure of an atom or molecule will affect its emission and absorption spectra but that's quite different from what you claim the mainstream says. And it is possible to reverse infer the mass of particles within a molecule from its spectra.

It just so happens I've spent much of the last 6 months working on a particular quantum chemistry probem which involves the link between particle masses, molecular structures and their spectra. I got paid to do it and I produced results which outperform what you'll find in the literature by several orders of magnitude. The results are validated by experimental data too. So I'd say I do understand this stuff pretty well, demonstrably so. Unlike you the sum of my scientific accomplishments are not represented by my forum postings.

The masses of particles which make up molecules appear in the equations whose solutions are the photon spectra associated to the molecule in question. Given sufficient experimental data for the various emission levels you can deduce the masses of the nuclei and electrons involved. It's not the most precise way, so other methods are used for precise measurements of masses, but it can be done. To illustrate this one needs only to look at the Hydrogen atom. It's energy levels pertain to the Bohr radius, which pertains to the electron's mass and charge. This is something you learn in a first course in quantum mechanics but since you don't know any quantum mechanics you're ignorant of this well known result.

Deep inelastic scatterings demonstrate the proton and neutron each have 3 localised charges within them. Jet events demonstrate their spin properties and non-zero mass nature. High precision W-W decay processes demonstrate the localised charges have additional types of charge from just electromagnetic, ie the strong force, and that there are 3 different charges in the strong force (ie the three 'colours'). So we can look into the inside of hardons, using things other than nucleon-nucleon processes. Again, a well know result to anyone who has studied the Standard Model, which you haven't.

Except that non-perturbative calculations using Lattice QCD do allow us to compute such things. Once again you make a blanket statement based on nothing but your ignorance and delusion you're right.

Or pseudo-scientific curve fitting and retroactive 'explanations'.

I can see why you would view intellectual honesty as something wrong, its a concept alien to you.

You still don't get it. Wow you're thick. It doesn't have anything to do with definitions of units, given all physically meaningful quantities are dimensionless, including the strong coupling constant.

Here's a superficial explanation of how the strong coupling constant can be computed.... Beams of protons are collided and the debris from them is measured. Clouds of new particles go out in all directions, carrying with them energy and momentum. These are measured. Given the knowledge of the beam energy and momentum going in and the energy and momenta coming out a particle physicist starts calculating, using QCD (which you claim is nonsense), including non-perturbative methods (which you also claim is nonsense in the SM), how protons with the measured incoming momentum and energy might convert into the observed particles coming out of the collisions. More specifically they compute a lot of Feynman diagrams and run lots of computer simulations of quarks from different protons emitting gluons, which then collide and create more quarks and electroweak bosons and leptons etc, which then fly out of the fireball to form quark jets. Given the observed jets and the observed incoming beams the particle physicist can then say "Well since the strong coupling constant alters how gluons and quarks interact my Feynman diagrams and computer simulations can only correctly explain the experiment if the coupling constant is equal to....". If the SM is wrong then all those Feynman diagrams and non-perturbative calculations are wrong. You have repeatedly said you consider them all wrong and 'shams' etc. But if they are all wrong then the physicists calculation to compute the coupling constant is wrong, so the value of the coupling constant is wrong. So if you're right about the SM and QCD and non-perturbative methods used by the community then the implication is the use of them to calculate the strong coupling constant leads to a wrong answer. But you also claim you correctly predict the value of the coupling constant. But you don't think the calculations which lead to such a value in the mainstream community are right.

You cannot have it both ways. If all the QCD/quark stuff is nonsense and thus anything calculated from them flawed, including the strong coupling constant value, then your prediction for the strong coupling constant is also wrong since in reality there isn't how the internals of the nucleons are behaving.

The only way you can get around this is to work with the raw data, the energies and momenta the detectors measured. Everything else, everything else, relies on the Standard Model to interpret the data to extract other bits of information. Since you don't have access to such data you cannot do any such calculations. It is for this reason all of your work is undermined, you simultaneously denounce the SM as a sham while loudly proclaiming how you can reproduce results from it. I must have explained this to you 10+ times in the past year or so but it just doesn't sink in. The fact you think I was referring to something to do with units shows how clueless you are. You say you've grasped my point but you so obviously haven't. The question then becomes whether you have grasped it but don't want to face up to it or whether you're actually so thick you cannot grasp what is really a simple thing.

Perhaps another example? Suppose you wanted to compute the value of G, Newton's constant. How might you do it? You could get a ball, a ruler and a stop watch and then measure its mass and time how long it takes to fall a distance L. The raw data is just a length L, a time T and a mass M. How can we extract a value for G from that? Well you need a model, something which links G to L, T and M. We can use F=ma and \(F = G\frac{MM_{E}}{r^{2}}\). Doing the necessary calculations we can write G in terms of L, T and M. However, if the models are not right then the value of G will not be, even though the raw data is accurate. For example, if we used general relativity we'd get a very similar but slightly different answer (if you were doing this experiment near a black hole event horizon it'd be a huge difference!). Different models process the same data differently and thus give different answers. This is why saying "The SM is nonsense" undermines your claim to have accurately modelled the strong coupling constant, it's computed from data using the SM! If the particle physicist I just mentioned accidently changed the number of quark flavours in his calculations from 6 to 10 (suppose we discovered some more quark types) then the calculations would result in a different value for the strong coupling constant!

Everything which isn't directly observable must be inferred using models. Different models predict different amounts from the same data. You denounce the SM while lauding over one of its outputs! This is why your claims are inconsistent, this is why all your assertions and delusions amount to nothing. This is why you'll be sure to achieve nothing until you address this fundamental, fatal problem in your claims. Until such time as you aquire raw collider data and process it through your own work this problem kills your ideas.

Updating our models as we gain new understanding and data is childish? It's the scientific method! Sometimes a model only needs a small adjustment, other times you burn it to the ground.

Pictures? I didn't mention any pictures. Ironic of you to call me a liar by lying about me! Rather I had to correct you on your misunderstanding about the difference between deconfinement and asymptotic freedom. You thought them the same when they are different. Given you claim to explain everything with your work it's a bit odd your work didn't already tell you there is a difference, since they are two experimentally distinct phenomena....

Confinement wasn't added due to the experiments you are referring it, it was known about long long before them. The article you link to is explaining how the particulars of the deconfinement process wasn't well understood. There's a difference between saying "We predicted this effect but we were slightly out in the accuracy so had to make small modifications to the model" compared to "This effect no one expected and we have had to bolt on an entirely new section to the model". The reality is the former, not the latter as you're implying. QGP physics is difficult to calculate things for so much of the fine detail hasn't yet been worked out.

You call me a liar yet you misrepresent anyone you think might help to make your claims look less laughable. You do it in regards to me and in regards to the community at large. If you really want physics to bin the SM and work on your ideas you need to be honest. You aren't going to convince particle physicists if they see you lying about them and their work. It might work to con a few people on forums but it'll get you nowhere in the research community.

Project much?

I stand by everything I've said. Your claims are terminal flaws in them and you misrepresent people, including to their face (ie me). You can do nothing but just assert things, all the time avoiding facing up to a fatal problem your work has. Of course it's no skin off my nose if you ignore this problem, you have the right to waste your existence deluding yourself, accomplishing nothing, I (as well as the rest of the research community) will contiue with productive research which can be presented honestly and stands up to scrutiny. I know its incredibly unlikely you'll realise your mistakes, you seem to lack the basic mental capacities for that, but I want to make it obvious to everyone else who is reading how easy it is to put down your claims and how fundamentally flawed your assertions are, all it needs is a reasonable grasp of the scientific method and how experiments are handled. I haven't needed any university level physics knowledge to point out the problems, all that I've needed is knowledge someone whose read a few pop science books will have. Having a decent grasp of scientific procedures, especially the handling of experiment vs theory, is important for someone to be a good scientist and just like every other relevant or useful knowledge of science you don't seem to have any.