Neutrino Speed

AlphaNumeric, all can see that you violate permanently many SciForums rules. Your behaviour is scandalous. I do not understand why James R. tolerates it.
It is obvious that you have an allergy to me and to my scientific arguments. You do not understand physics so there appears the hate speech.

If I am not right, i.e. if you indeed published your papers in scientific journals, why you cannot write the links? You should write some reasons why you cannot write the links. Once more: the arXiv is not a scientific journal – it acts due to the endorsement. I know that you registered your papers in scientific journals but my question is different and very simple. Were your papers published in scientific journals? Just the links are needed. If you cannot write them on this Forum, you can send private message. Then I will write that I am not right. It is very strange that you make a secret of such thing. Just pride yourself on the published papers in the scientific journals unless you are the liar. You know PhD, the word ‘accepted’ does not mean ‘published’.

In following your post

http://nongeometric.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/disagreements/#comment-18

you wrote many lies about my Everlasting Theory and next you blocked my access to this page. You know, this is a slander. You know, this is a penal act. Only very bad person behaves in such way.

AlphaNumeric, you desperately try to eliminate me from this forum because you are the loser. All can see that your arguments are not the scientific arguments. There dominates the hate speech and invectives – I cited them. Members of these Forums for such behaviour are on the ban list. Why you are not?

AlphaNumeric, in your last post you violated following SciForums rules.
You did not support your arguments with evidence.
The evidence is as follows – this is your ‘argumentation’ to my post concerning the DNA:

There are the personal attacks on another member….
There are the threats.
The evidence is as follows.

Just you are dishonest. Permanently.

There is the hate speech.
There are the repeated off-topic posting. You know, you are the provocator.
There is the trolling.

Can you eliminate from your posts the absurd argumentation? Just there should be SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENTATION.
So once more: You are the provocator. In your posts mostly is lack of scientific arguments. Just there dominates the hate speech.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Today all know that neutrinos are the superluminal particles. My prediction on base of my Everlasting Theory - see my first post published before September 22, 2011 - is correct. AlphaNumeric criticized my correct prediction. Now he tries to eliminate the author of this very important thread consistent with experimental data but not consistent with the mainstream theories which AlphaNumeric defends. Just he does not understand physics.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If I didn't know better, I would swear that this is meant as a joke. This is one of the looniest ideas I have seen in quite awhile, and that is saying something in 'fringe land'.

Neutrinos forming a double helix? It is so wrong, on SO many levels - I am simply astounded.:bugeye:

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Can you explain why binary systems of neutrinos cannot create a double helix?

Such objects appear within my theory. Such objects are not taken from a ceiling. Just such objects appear in my coherent theory which leads to the experimental data only and to the superluminal neutrinos too. My theory shows that the ground state of the Einstein spacetime consists of the non-rotating binary systems of neutrinos. It is very difficult to detect such binary systems. We should measure the mass with accuracy about 10^-67 kg. The binary systems of neutrinos are the carriers of gluons and photons. The photons can be entangled – this is the observational fact. My theory shows that the photons are entangled because the binary systems of neutrinos are entangled i.e. the carriers of photons. The spins of the binary systems of neutrinos are tangent to the threads in the double helix. This means that the weak charges of neutrinos create following chain: + - + - + - …. It looks similarly as the chain in the DNA: sugar acid sugar acid sugar acid... . Moreover, there are the four different types of the binary systems of neutrinos i.e. 4 different + -. This means that in a thread composed of the + - there is a code which looks as the code in the DNA (the A, C, G and T).

My explanation is such simple! Such matrices of the molecular DNAs should be everywhere in our Universe.

+ -(1) + -(3) + -(3) + -(2) + -(4) + -(4) + -(4) + -(2) and so on.

acid sugar(A) acid sugar(G) acid sugar(G) acid sugar(C) and so on.

 

The next question should be as follows. Why there are the codons i.e. why the genetic code consists of three-letter 'words', for example, AAT or GAC and so on? And the answer is as follows. Each non-rotating binary system of neutrinos has two internal helicities associated with the internal helicities of the two neutrinos. This means that there are three possibilities i.e. right-right (R-R), left-left (L-L) or left-right (L-R) = right-left (R-L). This means that there should appear the trios of the ‘words’.

 

Because unlike you I don't need or desire to plaster my work everywhere. You know my name, you know my papers, you know my thesis. The references are given in those. If you're unable to find them you shouldn't blame others.

When I say I have had work published I mean in journals, I am not counting ArXiv.

Yes. What is 'registering'? If you submit your work and it isn't published you don't say it's published, it's been rejected. I submitted my work, it was reviewed and then published in the journal. All of my papers.

Sylwester, are you seriously unable to use Google? Can't you search my thesis for the word 'published'.

You complain I'm supposedly engaging in 'scandalous behaviour' and here you are, flat out lying about me because you either can't use Google properly, you can't read web pages properly or you simply are dishonest. I suspect it's all three.

If I'd been unable to publish any work in any journal I'd not have got a doctorate.

Unlike you I don't feel the need to wear my work on my sleeve. I don't need to link to my work to demonstrate I am competent at science. I don't need to plaster my name and links to my work everywhere. I'm not 100% secretive about it but at the same time I try to maintain some level of subtly about it. Your unwillingness or inability to use a search engine or read documents is no fault of mine.

Thanks for demonstrating you either don't read what I post or you're deliberately dishonest. I'll repeat something from my previous post for you, since you clearly missed it the first time :

I submitted my work, it was reviewed, it was accepted, it was published and I got a doctorate for it.

Now what about that don't you understand?

You really should consult a lawyer because it isn't. You're attempting to bully me and it isn't working.

I haven't tried to get you banned. Feel free to ask JamesR, I haven't made any request in the moderators forum to ban you. I even said I'd leave you alone so you can spout your nonsense. But rather than accepting that offer you keep upping the level of lies about me.

I tried to engage you in discussion. I honestly don't think you're lucid enough to manage it, you degenerate into repetitive talking points and insults.

Let's see. Thus far in this thread you've concluded I have paranoid schizophrenia, that I was dismissed from my job, that I've lied about my work, that I've been involved in a moderator conspiracy on other forums to ban you, that I've engaged in slander. None of these are true, you have simply plucked them from thin air because you have an axe to grind.

I'm sorry you feel so resentful to anyone who has managed to do what you haven't, namely be competent and successful in physics, but you really need to find a better way to deal with your anger. Rather than fabricate lies about people who stand up to you, rather than try to bully people with threats and attempted intimidation why don't you spend your time a little more constructively?

You really don't want to go down that road because you can't provide evidence for your claims about string/M theory. Or your experimental accuracy while simultaneously dismissing the SM. Or anything you've said about me. Remember how I asked you to provide evidence I was controlling the moderators on PhysOrg and supposedly got you banned? You ignored my request. You simply lied, no evidence, no justification. So I really don't think you're in a position to be playing the "You didn't provide evidence!" rule.

As for your claims about DNA the onus is on the one making the claim. You can't provide a working viable model which actually does all you can claim and thus I have nothing to debunk. The onus isn't on me to point out nonsense, it's for you to justify your nonsense. Something no one is accepting from you. No one has supported you in this thread. The only other people who reply to you make similar comments as me about your work.

Like I said Sylwester, I'll happily leave you alone to post to your hearts desire within this subforum, 'alternative theories'. I was willing to do it a few weeks back. All I require of you is you simply give the whole "You're a paranoid schizophrenic who lies about his research and was probably dismissed from his job!" stuff a rest. None of that you have any evidence for and I'd be well within my rights to report you for saying such things. I haven't because, despite your imaginings, I'm not that vindictive. I feel it important to correct your mischaracterisations and gross errors about me but other than that I'm happy to let you yell at the clouds for all your worth, it's no skin off my nose. I do not feel the need to convince you of my capabilities, though you have access to my research (you just struggle to read any of it), but at the same time I'm not going to let you just lie about me. If you continue to do so then I will report you because enough is enough. This has been going on for pages and pages and I was willing to let it rest.

Are you?

 

AlphaNumeric, my theory is in my book. It is the mathematically and physically coherent theory. If you claim that it is untrue you SHOULD PROVE IT IN THE SCIENTIFIC WAY. Can you stop to write the ALL USELESS NONSENSE? Just write about science. I try to solve the all unsolved problems within the mainstream theories, also the unsolved problems concerning the DNA. My explanations are logic. If you claim that it is untrue you should PROVE it.

Yes, I wrote about the paranoia and schizophrenia but you cannot see that just you are the PROVOCATOR – see the history of your and my posts. See your last post. Can you see that you prefer to write tens nonsensical sentences instead of a short personal message to me? Yes, I admit that I cannot find your papers in the scientific journals and maybe it is my incompetence but it is not a reason you behave scandalously.

AlphaNumeric, just science is most important. If you cannot discuss via scientific arguments you should write nothing.

I was never a provocator, just you are. Just you tread on my corns.

 

Below is some recapitulation of my theory of the origin of the DNA.

My theory proves that there are two families of neutrinos only. So why scientists claim that there are the three families of neutrinos? The Einstein spacetime consists of the binary systems of neutrinos. The observed ‘oscillations’ of the neutrinos in reality are the exchanges of the free neutrinos onto the neutrinos in the binary systems of neutrinos. Such exchanges change the energies of the free neutrinos what leads to the ILLUSION that there is in existence the third family of neutrinos i.e. the tau-neutrinos.

So there are the two families of neutrinos i.e. the electron-neutrinos (the EN) and the muon-neutrinos (the MN). In each family is the neutrino carrying the WEAK CHARGE (the +) and the antineutrino carrying the opposite weak charge (the -).

This means that due to the interactions of the weak charges, there are in existence the 4 different binary systems of neutrinos

+EN-EN, +EN-MN, +MN-EN and +MN-MN.

They are the analogs to the 4 ‘words’ in the DNA i.e. the A, C, G and T.

The neutrinos have the left (the L) or right (R) internal helicity. This means that due to the internal helicities there are the 3 states of the binary systems of the neutrinos

L-L, R-R and L-R=R-L

Such trios are the analogs to the codons in the DNA, for example AAG, CAT, and so on.

We can see that the 4 ‘words’ in the DNA are associated with the weak charges of the neutrinos whereas the trios/codons(3) in the DNA are associated with the internal helicities of the neutrinos.

There are the 4 different left-handed binary systems of neutrinos and 4 right-handed i.e. there are the 8 different binary systems of neutrinos carrying the GLUONS.

Recapitulation
The 4 ‘words’ in the DNA and the 8 gluons lead to the 2 families of neutrinos ONLY. The ‘oscillations’ of the neutrinos (in reality the ‘oscillations’ are the exchanges; neutrinos are the very stable particles) lead to the ILLUSION that there are the three families of neutrinos.
The double helix threads composed of the binary systems of neutrinos are the matrices for the molecular DNAs. Such matrices are everywhere in our Universe and they arose before the ‘soft’ big bang after the period of inflation – see the Everlasting Theory.

 

I was going to answer why the idea that neutrinos forming a double helix is absurd but after reading the above post I can see it is pointless. This is all just a ridiculous fantasy. It is so out there in La-La land that it isn't even possible to make a rational comment it.:shrug:

 

So why did you say I'm a paranoid schizophrenic whose probably been dismissed from his job? Where's the science in that? Where's the science in lying about me?

I honestly tried but you refuse to answer questions about your claims, you just spout paragraphs of talking points you want to make. Origin is noticing the same thing, as have others who reply to you.

You're welcome to yell at the clouds on your own now. If you attempt to get attention by saying anything about me I'll consider it trolling and report you because, quite frankly, you aren't worth engaging in discussion and I don't wish to continue. I tried.

Origin, just let him be. He'll burn himself out if he's not given any attention. If he starts saying anything about you just report it.

 

Agreed.

 

We can calculate the superluminal speeds of neutrinos also from masses of the gluon balls:

(v(neutrino) – c)/c = (M/m)^2,

where M = m(neutron) – (m(proton) + m(electron)). My theory leads to following theoretical results:
m(electron) = 0.510998906 MeV,
m(proton) = 938.2725 MeV,
m(neutron) = 939.5378 MeV,
so M = 0.7543 MeV

whereas for the MINOS experiment is m = m(muon). My theory leads to
m(muon) = 105.656314 MeV so the central value for the superluminal speed of neutrinos obtained within my theory for the MINOS experiment emitted in the beta decays and caused by the muons is:

v(neutrino) = 1.000051c.

 

Now on my website you can find the extended version of my book (the 131 pages A4).

There is the whole paper concerning the neutrino speeds (see pages 104-107).
I present the three different methods how we can calculate the superluminal speeds of neutrinos. All results are consistent with the experimental data (the MINOS and OPERA experiments) and the observational facts concerning the supernova SN 1987A.

In the Introduction I described also how the experimental data and the theory of chaos lead to the atom-like structure of baryons. This structure leads to the superluminal neutrinos. The Standard Model is incorrect for low-energy regime.

Within the Everlasting Theory, I described also trajectory of light in gravitational fields. For the sun I obtained 1.751 seconds of arc (see page 119). This is consistent with the result obtained within the General Theory of Relativity. The calculations are very simple due to the invariance of mass of the carriers of photons. They are the neutrino-antineutrino pairs. The invariance of mass of the neutrinos leads to the superluminal neutrinos too.

 

i am agree with you.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

You both still write the nonsense.
Maybe you should read my book and it:

http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=21149&cpage=1#comment-95883

The time for theories which start from the gas composed of tachyons is coming. Such theories are very simple and give much better results than the TODAY mainstream theories.

 

You should be suspended for advertising.

 

Advertising of my post? I try do not write the same posts in different places.

 

Making stuff up does yield a very simple result, unfortunately it has no relation to reality, this is called science fiction.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Sylwester: I have also toyed with the speculation that strings (if they truly exist) may be configured in composite, twisted, rope-like states (go to my EEMU webpage for a look) - perhaps mimicing your DNA helical matrix - and remember . . . . . 'Non Illegitimi Carborundum" . . . "Don't let the bastards wear you down" (<--Humor here). I appreciate your OOB speculations . . . .

 

The science fiction is the procedure error in the QCD and the mass-hierarchy error in the EW theory.

Of course there is relation to reality. The theory starting from the gas composed of tachyons leads to the perfect theoretical results concerning the superluminal neutrinos and the latest LHC-experiments data. The experimental data and the theory of chaos lead to the atom-like structure of baryons too.