# Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Sylwester Kornowski, Oct 5, 2011.

1. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
No. The mainstream QCD needs revision. It is in my book. The revised QCD leads to the mass spectrum of the quarks, even to the exact masses of the up and down quarks. But the other properties of the quarks are different. For example, they are not point particles and consist of the carriers of gluons, and so on. It is the reason why I call them the sham quarks. See pages 89-95.

Messages:
703
Do you claim that mainstream THEORY confines at low energy? You know, there is $1,000,000 reward for the author. As usually you swindle and swindle. My theory confines in low-energy regime but origin of such “confinement” is different. Just the atom-like structure of the baryons is the solution. 4. ### Google AdSenseGuest Advertisement to hide all adverts. 5. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member Messages: 6,702 You fail to retort my explanation of why your claims are inconsistent. There's no need for me to type another lengthy post, it would only allow you to change the subject. Until you can address that point you've got a flawed piece of work. Likewise with the fact, which you admit, you predict things outside of experimental bounds. /edited Oh and to illustrate you're unfamiliar with the nuances of gauge theories, the$1million prize you are referring to is the proof that Yang Mills wth a compact gauge group has a mass gap. This is not synonymous with there being confinement. They are related phenomena but it is not necessarily the case that proving the existence of one in axiomatic gauge theory will prove the existence of the other. If you read the original paper which defines the problem for the Prize, written by Witten and Jaffe, you'll see they make a distinction between the two phenomena. They explicitly say it would be nice to prove both, along with another result, but it isnot necessary to win the prize.

Furthermore, if you're interpreting what was said to be referring to the theory and not the actual physical reality, then you're a hypocrite. You state there's no proof of confinement (and therefore there's no proof there isn't confinement) yet you categorically assert QCD doesn't confine. You complain I assert something when the question is an open question yet you assert something about the same problem! Well done on being a hypocrite. Just an illustration of how two faced you can be.

Last edited: Oct 31, 2012

7. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
AlphaNumeric, even in Wikipedia you can find following sentence.

“Proof that QCD confines at low energy is a mathematical problem of great relevance, and an award has been proposed by the Clay Mathematics Institute for whoever is ALSO able to show that the Yang–Mills theory has a mass gap and its existence.”

Can you see the word ‘also’ which concerns the ‘mass gap’? Most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. It means that I am right.

Within my Everlasting Theory, I proved that “confinement” has different origin and I proved that there is the mass gap (see pages 27 and 28) i.e. why there changes the local mass density of the zero-energy gluon field.

8. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
It only proves you're right from the 'Kornowski' POV. Nobody else agrees with you so the consensus is the 'Kornowski' POV is wrong. That's why your discourse is taking place in the Alternative theory section of a public science forum. Your prediction for neutrino speed empirically round files The Everlasting Theory. Not to mention the other bogus predictions for matter exceeding the local coordinate speed of light. Your theory is empirically confirmed nonsense.

9. ### wlminexBannedBanned

Messages:
1,587
Sylwester . . . . hang in there!!

10. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
Good for Sylwester. Hanging onto empirically falsified theoretical predictions is what cranks do. Apparently you can't understand what AN said either. IE hanging 'the theoretical prediction' from a sky hook.

Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
11. ### wlminexBannedBanned

Messages:
1,587
I have no problem . . . "understanding what AN said 'aether'." . . . pun intended . . . it's really a shame that so-called scientists cannot entertain new ideas without personally deriding the members' integrity . . . . is this NOT an On the Fringe . . . Alternative Theories Thread??

Last edited: Nov 1, 2012
12. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
You did say that so now you're lying. Screw your book. It's not worth reading since you've already pointed out that predictions of your theory have been empirically falsified. It's roundfiled.

13. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Brucep, you are big sluggard so you write the same nonsense as AlphaNumeric. I explained in my previous posts very precisely why the last experimental data concerning the superluminal neutrino speed are worthless – see my post #182 AND ESPECIALLY #187. Moreover, I cited you so you read it. It means that similarly as AlphaNumeric you try to swindle readers.

I proved that you and AlphaNumeric did not understand the perihelion precession of planets. Just you and AlphaNumeric did not understand that the 43 arc seconds per century for Mercury and the 8.62 for Venus are the relativistic corrections ONLY. I claimed that the theoretical result for Venus, i.e. about 204, which is consistent with the observational fact, is calculated in my book only. I asked to cite a paper if I am not right. Till today there is no response.

I proved on base of the atom theory that from photon spectrum of atoms we cannot calculate many physical quantities which concern structure of atom as a whole. The same is in QCD. From the mass spectrum of the quarks (especially the up and down quarks) we never calculate a few physical quantities which concerns the structure of baryons. AlphaNumeric claimed that I am not right but the unproductive 48 years shows that I am right.

I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand asymptotic freedom – I cited the sentence from the Wikipedia.
I proved that AlphaNumeric is not right that the QCD confines at low energy. On the other hand, he claims that he understand confinement. If it is true then he should show how QCD confines at low energy. Can he do it? Of course not.
I proved that AlphaNumeric does not understand difference between different theories. I claimed that if in different theories (different initial conditions, different parameters and methods) are the same definitions then due to not the same number of parameters we can obtain the same theoretical results and compare them with experimental data. Of course, I am right whereas AlphaNumeric is not.

And so on. The last your and AlphaNumeric discussion with me shows that STILL I am right, not you. You and AlphaNumeric can write the nonsense or unimportant things only. You completely do not understand physics. The hundreds unsolved basic problems in theoretical particle physics and cosmology cannot teach you that there must be the physics beyond the mainstream theories.

All my theoretical results (a few hundred) are TODAY consist or very close to experimental data. Of course, there are many predictions as well – they differ from the mainstream predictions. If you claim that I wrote untrue then you should prove it. If once again you will not prove your claims, I will write that you are big liar. You just write at random.

You both swindle and swindle to be right but readers know that you both are not right. Just you both compromise yourself.

BTW, the discovered Higgs boson (125 GeV) in fact is the SHAM Higgs boson. The Higgs mechanism is not in existence. In my book I proved it.

14. ### AlphaNumericFully ionizedRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
6,702
I am referencing the original paper where Witten and Jaffe lay out the specific details, ie what mathematical problem the prize is actually for. I said so in my last post. I guess you missed that.

Besides, my point about you being a hypocrite is valid. You state things about the theory and then complain I state things about the theory, using the "There's a prize for resolving that question" reason that I'm wrong to state things. So it's okay for you to state things but not me? You hypocrite. And this isn't an ad hom, it's a statement of fact because you're using one rule for me and another for you.

I don't care what your work says. I've already explained why it's internally inconsistent and how you ADMIT it predicts things outside of experimental bounds. A 'beautiful theory' (as you keep calling your work) which is experimentally falsified is wrong, regardless of elegance. There's plenty of elegant mathematical constructs which are physically invalid, the ultimate discriminator of whether or not they predict accurate things. You admit your work doesn't.

Your work is falsified. Everything else is irrelvant. I don't care what else your work says, what you claim is the explanation for this or that phenomenon, all that matters is the fact your work is experimentally falsified. It is wrong.

Why? He admits his work doesn't match experiment. I've also explained why it is internally inconsistent. Hanging onto an admittedly falsified idea is pointless. Sure, he might want to take some ideas from it and develop something new since trying to come up with alternatives to the mainstream is fine. However, if he ignores evidence and his own admittance that his work is contradicted by experiment what does he gain by clinging to his work? Nothing.

Both of you (and many other hacks here) need to realise that it's okay to admit you're wrong. Every single good scientist will have done that many many times during their lifetime. I'm frequently wrong. Anyone who thinks their work is beyond reproach is delusional. Unfortunately hacks seem to regularly be such people. If you are really wanting to advance science and to present new and innovative approaches to problems in science then you need to realise there's a difference between thinking outside of the box and just making up random nonsense and also realise there's a difference between having confidence in your work and blindly clinging to demonstrably wrong ideas. It's ironic hacks complain the mainstream cling to their ideas in the face of evidence when they do exactly that themselves. Yet more hypocrisy.

I've explained, at great length over the space of YEARS, to Sylwester the fundamental problem in his work. Just look at my last few posts in this thread. I'm not just posting "You're an idiot", I'm explaining why Sylwester is wrong. The fact Sylwester ignores the clear evidence he's wrong is what makes me call him a hack and dishonest. That behaviour does undermine his integrity. People don't get integrity automatically, they earn it and Sylwester has squandered all of his on delusion and nonsense.

As for whether or now Sylwester can post here and not expect to be derided the fringe section is where you're allowed to post fringe nonsense, that is different from being allowed to post fringe stuff and noone can criticise it. If Sylwester only wants to hear good things and never have any criticism then he should get a blog or just stop coming on the internet because it would mean he isn't interested in science, only deluding himself.

You seem to think the fringe section is a place where no one can have their work criticised or critiqued. That says a hell of a lot about your mentality, since any honest competent scientist would understand that review, critique and evaluation is an essential part of science. If someone wants to be immune to such feedback then they aren't interested in science. If Sylwester could engage in honest discussion I'd not say he's dishonest. The complete refusal to listen to negative feedback is almost universal in the fringe community here, while the opposite is true for the posters here who are competent at science. Ironic, given the fringe section complain such behaviour is in the mainstream community, not theirs.

You obviously didn't read the article I linked to. It talks about more than just the relativistic correction. Since you like citing Wikipedia, if you check Wikipedia you'll see it says the motion of Venus is well described by current gravity models.

You make claims about QCD which are demonstrably false.

I cited the paper Wikipedia cites! And I'm the guy who had to explain the difference between confinement and asymptotic freedom to you.

Nice hypocrisy. I said QCD confines and you said "But it's still an open problem! You can't assert that!" but then go on to say "QCD doesn't confine!". But if it's still an open problem you can't say that either. Hypocrite.

So to show I understand confinement I have to prove QCD confines? Nice strawman. Are you aware your logic is terrible?

More strawmanning. People only need read my last few posts to see you haven't understand anything I've said. People are welcome to ask me to elaborate, I have nothing to hide.

There's plenty of unsolved problems in physics, there always have been and there always will be. None of which has any impact on how well I understand it. You just pump out the non sequitors, don't you?

And I'm certain I've contributed more to science than you ever will. People pay to listen to me when it comes to mathematical physics. You have to spam thousands of physicists' email boxes and no one gives you the time of day. Perhaps that's why your lies become ever more ridiculous and ever more blatent, you're having to become louder and more crazy to even get anyone's attention. Unfortunately for you the attention is in the form of pointing and laughing.

A fact you admitted is false. You admitted your prediction was outside experimental bounds. This is such blatent lying I don't know why you do it....

You admitted it in this very thread in the last few pages. Do you need me to link you to the post?

That sums up your delusions, your denial of reality. Anything which doesn't square with your assumptions you ignore. You complain about the denial in the mainstream community while showing far worse yourself.

15. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Are you referencing? You hypocrite. There should be the link all could read it in details. In Wikipedia is that most important is to prove that QCD confines at low energy. So I am waiting for the link because you many times proved that you do not understand what you are reading.

You proved that my theory is internally inconsistent? You only proved that I apply different methods but it does not mean that my theory is inconsistent. It is obvious that in different theories can be applied different methods. It is not reason to disqualify any theory. You just do not understand physics. You proved it many times. Whereas if you claim that someone of my theoretical results is not consistent or not very close to experimental data, you should cite it – just page and/or formula and the incorrect result.

16. ### originHeading towards oblivionValued Senior Member

Messages:
11,112

Wow, I will try that at my next experimental results review. "I think my hypothesis is correct because while it is not statistically consistent with the data, it is very close!" I am sure that will fly.

If they question me I will, tell them I am using Sylwester Statistics and call them hypocrites and liars.

Well on the other hand I want to keep my job so I will stick with real data and real statistics.

17. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
AlphaNumeric, it is incredible. I proved exactly in my posts why you are not right. There are the links, cited sentences and the common facts. But your moral nature is very bad. You are not right but you will offend, to lie and write at random because you are thinking that if you will throw discussion into confusion nobody will notice your incompetence.

You do not know me. I am brave man. When I am not right then I always say that I am not right. Someday I did it in front of many peoples, also my pupils, when I was director of a school. But simultaneously I cannot tolerate such liar as you are. You know, there is my real name whereas there is your nickname. Maybe it is the reason that you think that you are unpunished when you swindle readers?

18. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
Origin, you just proved that you do not understand physics. You do not understand that in mathematics 4 = 3.98 is the bad result whereas in physics it can be accepted because sometimes we neglect phenomena which are not important to understand the considered problem. Then the picture is more transparent. In mainstream theoretical physics there are many such results and nobody says that they are incorrect.
But in my theory are many theoretical results in which I took into account all needed phenomena. For example, calculated magnetic moment of muon within my theory leads to following value

1.001165921508 (see page 50, formula (142)).

Messages:
1,784

20. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
You are liar. I obviously did read the article you linked to.
The title is as follows: “Relativistic Perihelion Procession of Orbits of Venus and the Earth”.

http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0802/0802.0176.pdf

All can see that there are the relativistic corrections only.
Now you write that the theoretical calculations which should lead to the about 204 arc seconds per century for Venus are in Wikipedia. But where is the link? Is it your next bluff? You know, it is not a poker.

21. ### Sylwester KornowskiNeutrinos are nonrelativisticRegistered Senior Member

Messages:
703
It is just untrue sentence. You should prove it. But please, you should be precise and write only the truth.

So once more: I wrote about the asymptotic freedom as follows: “Scientists claim that in the strong field there is obligatory the stronger and stronger mutual attraction of the point quarks when they are moving away.” Next you wrote as follows: “You've just shown you don't understand what asymptotic freedom is. Asymptotic freedom is not the fact quark interactions get stronger as you move the quarks away from one another. That is, as it happens, related to confinement.” And next I cited the sentence from Wikipedia: ““In physics, asymptotic freedom is a property of some gauge theories that causes bonds between particles to become asymptotically weaker as energy increases, and ...”. And next I explained that mean distance between quarks is smaller when energy is higher – it is the obvious fact.

And it is the true.
The conclusion is as follows: You do not understand the asymptotic freedom.

You wrote that QCD confines at low energy whereas I wrote that QCD does not confine at low energy. Then you admitted that I am right.

It is obvious that you do not understand the confinement as a whole because TODAY nobody understands it entirely! This means that you taught me the phenomena you do not understand correctly. I claim that the real nature of the confinement is described in my book. It leads directly also to the mass of the sham Higgs boson. Moreover, there are in existence a few mass gaps associated with the real confinement. They are associated with the atom-like structure of baryons. To describe confinement, we must understand the internal structure of the Einstein spacetime and origin of the weak interactions of the Einstein spacetime components. All needed explanations are in my book.

22. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
You're hanging on to 'a personal theory' which has been empirically falsified. Theoretical predictions that predict matter can exceed the local coordinate speed of light are especially stupid. You haven't proven anything to anybody but yourself. That's what cranks do. You're a delusional liar. You didn't explain anything to AN other than your disconnect with reality.

23. ### brucepValued Senior Member

Messages:
4,098
You didn't learn anything. Could you write down details [the mathematical derivation] how your theory predicts the natural precession of all orbits? I wrote it down derived from the metric. You write it down for the strong field and weak field.

BTW: The model you linked is pretty shabby. The Model AN linked is excellent. Both models are trying to derive a correlation with empirical measurements. The only theoretical prediction is Einstein. You must have forgotten something when you didn't access the the details for RRT.

Last edited: Nov 1, 2012