Sylwester's 'Everlasting theory'

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

  1. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,169
    Isn't it nice to have a place like vixra that will publish anything?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Just due to vixra there is democracy in theoretical particle physics and cosmology.
    Just due to vixra I can write about the fundamental theorem that should be accepted as axiom.
    Just due to vixra I can write about the phase transitions that follow from the half-integral-spin constancy. It is such obvious that ultimate theory must start from this theorem. It is such obvious that it is the fundamental formula. But scientists do not understand it or this formula is very dangerous for their careers.
    Just due to vixra I can criticise the messy methods applied in the mainstream particle physics and cosmology.

    And it is not important that there are the better and worse papers and even the very bad papers. Archive should not select papers. Selection of papers should be characteristic for scientific journals, not archive.

    The same concerns this Forum. There are the better and worse posts and even the very bad posts, just a ble, ble, ble….without scientific arguments. But it is not a reason to not discuss on this Forum. Here are the very interesting posts as well in which we can find very interesting ideas and very interesting scientific arguments. Many posts are very informative. So my question is as follows. Why you write your posts on this Forum i.e. on Forum on which we can find the very bad posts as well? Can you see your inconsistency?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    Thanks for showing you don't know even the most rudimentary of mathematics and that you're willing to misrepresent and lie about it in order to deceive yourself and others.

    It just proves my points about you.

    There's democracy, it just requires people be honest. You are not honest.

    A theorem is never going to be an axiom, since by virtue of being a theorem it means it is a non-trivial statement. Axioms must be self evidence or fundamental.

    And in doing so you show you don't know anything about them.

    The ArXiv is not an archive for everyone. It was created by and for the scientific community. Originally anyone could put stuff there and it became flooded with nonsense and thus it couldn't fulfil its purpose. By requiring a modicum of competency from the people putting things there it doesn't get flooded with noise and can serve the purpose it was built for, the facilitate quicker communication within research communities then the journals were allowing. It has less strict rules than journals but it has some rules. It would be worthless if it had no rules because we'd have to sift through crap from people like you in order to find the actual science.

    Forums are not the place for research level discussions, at least not ones like this. You don't realise this because you have no idea what 'research level discussions' look like.

    You realise you're being dishonest because you keep avoiding my question about whether you think string theorists and other mainstream researchers will just ignore the fact you're lying about their work. Even if your pdf gets to the attention of the mainstream community (which forums and vixra will not do) when they read your dishonest misrepresentations of the mainstream, their work, they'll just say "This person is clearly dishonest and profoundly ignorant of what the mainstream actually does and says". Do you think anyone is going to stop working on their work and start working on yours as a result? It's people like me you have to convince, people who know what the mainstream actually says because we ARE the mainstream. You might get away with lying to laypersons but you won't (and don't) get away with it with us.

    That (among other reasons, many other reasons) is why you're a failure and ignored by anyone who knows any science (other than me and I just point and laugh), despite you spamming more than 1000 scientists with your work over the last 30 years. 30 years. I'm 29! You've been an utter failure longer than I've been alive! Any rational person would have decided to approach things differently, to change how they work, but you just plug away. If insanity is doing the same thing again and again and again and expecting a different outcome then you are insane.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    All can see that the AlphaNumeric last post (but it concerns all his posts in this thread) is the very bad post, just a ble, ble, ble….without scientific arguments. Still there are the personal attacks, still he is trolling. He should be banned because he writes STILL THE SAME nonsense. It looks as schizophrenia.
    In all my posts I wrote only the true. I proved it because contrary to the AlphaNumeric posts, there always are the scientific arguments. He wrote the nonsense about the sizeless points, confinement and the word “effective” in physics. He proved many times his incompetence. I proved many times that he is the big liar and very dishonest person, for example, it concerns the confinement. He is able only to write the obvious things we can find in Wikipedia. There is no one his own idea.

    So once more: Whole physics shows that the half-integral spin is characteristic for all sizes/scales because there are the neutrinos, nucleons and electrons i.e. the basic particles the Nature consists of. The half-integral spin is characteristic for all types of interactions. Only a dunce cannot see that Nature is crying that fundamental theorem, that fundamental axiom should be the phase transitions based on the half-integral-spin constancy. It is the Holy Grail in physics. Such theorem/axiom leads to the fruitful string/M theory i.e. theory that leads to experimental data ONLY. The reformulated string/M theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, leads to the correct interpretation of the supersymmetry i.e. to the fermion-boson symmetry and new cosmology. The mainstream interpretation of the supersymmetry is incorrect i.e. there are not in existence the s-particles and other –inos. They never will be detected because they follow from the wrong initial condition applied in the mainstream string/M theory i.e. they follow from the different vibrations of the fundamental closed string. Such particles never will be detected.

    Recapitulation
    Whole Nature shows that the Everlasting Theory, which starts from the phase transitions based on the half-integral-spin constancy, is the Holy Grail in physics.
    It is the future of coherent physics and coherent mathematics. There is certainty (100%) that it is true and I will be waiting for revival/”awakening” in the theoretical particle physics and theoretical cosmology. The Enlightenment in theoretical physics and theoretical cosmology is coming.
     
  8. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,169
    Actually, all can see that sylwester is clearly the dishonest party in this discussion.
     
  9. rpenner Fully Wired Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,833
    It is not a "personal attack" to point out that someone's claims are untrue. It is a strong scientific argument to point out that a factual claim is unreliable.
     
  10. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    So where are the scientific arguments?

    If you write about axiom and theorem in relation to the Everlasting Theory then you are not right, the same as AlphaNumeric.
     
  11. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703

    AlphaNumeric, as usually, you do not understand what you are reading. It follows also from your tremendous incompetence and laziness. I know that you read the Wikipedia but you should read a more. I never in my life had discussed in such way. In such way I discuss ONLY with very dishonest persons as you are. AlphaNumeric, just you do not understand following very simple sentence: “An axiom in one system may be a theorem in another, and vice versa.”

    The Everlasting Theory starts from the axiom that there are the phase-transitions of the fundamental spacetime based on constancy of the half-integral spin. It is the static system.

    But there are the other initial conditions which lead to the possible interactions i.e. to the dynamic system. Within such dynamic system I proved that the half-integral-spin constancy plus possible interactions (the assumption) lead to the phase transitions (the argument/thesis) in which appear the particles observed in experiment and these particles have properties consistent with experimental data.

    Recapitulation
    There are the two different parallel systems in the Everlasting Theory i.e. the static and dynamic. In the static system the phase-transitions based on the half-integral-spin constancy are the axiom whereas in the dynamic system are the theorem. This means that following sentence: “This theorem should be accepted as axiom” is correct.
    This means that I knocked you into a cocked hat. ….quod erat demonstrandum…. (q.e.d.)
     
  12. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    To show your ignorance I must remind you of your big pieces of bad luck.
    1.
    You do not understand that theories starting from sizeless bare fermions and sizeless bare bosons are MATHEMATICALLY and PHYSICALLY incoherent.
    2.
    I taught you what confinement means.
    3.
    I taught you the difference between following terms: “effective” and effective.
    4.
    I proved that you do not understand that the mainstream string/M theory is based on crazy initial conditions as well i.e. some axioms are correct. This causes that this theory leads to unobserved s-particles and other –inos. We will detect only the neutrino-antineutrino bosons carrying the unitary spin.
    5.
    Now, I proved that you, PhD and mathematician, do not understand the relations between axioms and theorems.

    And now I will prove that you do not understand the basic problems concerning the Quantum Theory of Fields (QTFs). I claim that nobody besides me understands the limitations of the QTFs.

    In a gauge theory the Lagrangian is invariant under a group of local transformations. On the other hand, it is true that gauge symmetry means invariance of physical system in relation to different changes in values of charges. The cited your sentence suggests that I am an ignoramus whereas you understand the mainstream theories excellently. So to prove your competence, you should answer following questions.

    1.
    What conditions must be satisfied, the gauge symmetry to be valid? My question concerns the spacetime and physical constants. Why Nature satisfies such conditions?
    2.
    Was the gauge symmetry valid in the era of inflation?

    It is beyond a doubt that you are unable to answer these questions. I can teach you the coherent mathematics and physics but at first you should to thank and apologize. The answers to the above questions are very simple on base of the Everlasting Theory.
     
  13. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    I left a long period before replying to show how no one else gives a hoot about your claims. The only people who reply to you are those of us who see you for the dishonest hack you are and yourself. Why don't you spend your time better and write your posts up as a paper and send it to a journal? Oh wait, you tried getting your work published and you failed.

    And yet the computer you are currently staring at was built using such models. Clearly they have real world utility.

    No, you asserted your own notion of confinement, ignored when I explained to you how you had misunderstood the mainstream concepts of confinement and asymptotic freedom and now behave dishonestly by saying "You don't understand confinement" when what you really mean is "I have my own definition of those words and since you don't agree with them you don't know what they mean!". Redefining terminology is dishonest Sywlester. Speaking of which...

    As above. I used the phrase 'effective theory' in the mainstream sense, using it in the same way as it is used in published papers and textbooks. You didn't know it had a particular meaning and thus misunderstood it, hence this confusion. Now you, once again, claim I don't understand it when in fact you mean that because your understanding doesn't align with the entire particle physics community it is our problem, not yours. You used to claim that you understood some quantum field theory. If that were true you'd be aware of what 'effective theory' means within particle physics and you wouldn't have made such a mistake. But you didn't, thus illustrating how your knowledge of physics is not as good as you like to claim. Speaking of which...

    M theory and string theory have nothing to say about neutrinos or the like. They include supersymmetry but supersymmetry is a broad mathematical physics concept, a model having supersymmetry doesn't mean it automatically includes the s-particles and the like seen in the MSSM.

    And implying an as yet unobserved particle prediction is a problem is laughable. Predictions are, by definition, a statement about an as yet unobserved phenomenon. A good model should make predictions so we can test it in a way which isn't just retroactive (though retroactive consistency is required too).

    So you accept I have a PhD. Then you accept I have published work, which requires it to be novel and not just copied from Wikipedia. Then you accept I am capable of work which is more than just copied off the internet. Good, glad we've got that sorted. I'll expect you to stop with the "Can't you do anything other than just repeat Wikipedia?" and "Where is your original work?" stuff. That, coupled with the fact you know my real name and thus can find my published papers easily, means further such insinuation I'll consider trolling and report it as such.

    As for axioms and theorems where did you do that? Even on this page I have had to explain to you your misunderstanding of such things.

    That just about sums up your mentality and exemplifies your dishonesty. You have your own take on various things in physics, such as quantum field theory. You don't know and you don't understand the mainstream notion of quantum field theory, hence why I've had to explain it to you many times, so you make up your own. Now you go around saying "I understand quantum fields and AlphaNumeric doesn't!" when what you really mean is "AlphaNumeric understands the mainstream version of quantum field theory and I have my own notion of quantum fields, which is different. Since it is different AlphaNumeric doesn't understand it and therefore I will say AlphaNumeric doesn't understand quantum field theory, my version of quantum field theory.". You're just redefining things to suit yourself. It's like the whole thing with string theory. You don't know the mainstream notion of string theory so you make up your own version (ie just throw in some string theory buzzwords to your work) and then go around saying I and others don't understand string theory when you mean your version of it, not what everyone else understands 'string theory' to refer to. If you were honest you'd say "I have my own version of X and AlphaNumeric doesn't understand it", rather than "AlphaNumeric doesn't understand X". I understand the mainstream notions of quantum field theory, string theory, axioms and theorems etc well enough to have plenty of qualifications in it, published work and a research job. Do I understand your versions of those things? Not really but that is because your versions are incoherent nonsense.

    The fact you have to do this slight of hand, redefining what common terminology means, says all anyone needs to know about you. You cannot present your claims honesty so you lie. It really is that simple.

    So we're going to add 'gauge symmetry' to the list of things you redefine, are we? I could give the mainstream notion of gauge invariance, inflation etc but I'm certain you wouldn't understand. You no doubt have lined up your own version of those things which you'll post once I've given the mainstream versions and then you'll declare "AlphaNumeric doesn't understand gauge symmetries!" when what you really mean is "I don't understand the mainstream notion of gauge symmetry so I made up my own version and since AlphaNumeric explained the mainstream version and not my version I claim he doesn't understand gauge symmetry!".

    This seems to be your modus operandi, you find some bit of mathematical physics which is awash with technical terminology and considered somewhat complicated, you steal a few buzzwords, make up some nonsense of your own which uses those buzzwords and then you claim that you have explained or replaced that area of mathematical physics and people such as myself, who understand said mathematical physics, don't understand it because we don't align with your version of it.

    I keep asking you the same question and you keep ignoring it. Do you think that academics researching string theory or quantum field theory or gauge symmetries (those are not mutually exclusive) are going to read your work and not see this dishonesty? If you really and truly want your work to be taken up by the mainstream do you think this form of dishonesty is not going to be noticed? I noticed it when you lied about my PhD area, others will notice too. You might con laypersons with this nonsense but laypersons don't make up the research community, researchers who understand this stuff do.

    I can only conclude from this behaviour, your unwillingness to answer this question and the fact you post your work on a forum and not send it to a journal that in fact you don't really think this stuff will be taken up by the mainstream, that you know it is a failure and instead you've decided to try to con as many people as you can with this barrage of lies and deception. You complain when you perceive me to have lied about your work so why do you think a researcher would ignore when you lie about his work? Do you think a string theory researcher at Princeton or Cambridge is going to stop working on string theory and work on your stuff just because you put the phrases "T duality" or "gauge invariance" in your work, using them in ways which are utterly contradictory to their established meanings in mathematical physics?

    I take it from your continued silence on this matter you know the answer is "No, they wouldn't accept my work" but you're too dishonest to admit it.
     
  14. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    AlphaNumeric, you still are trolling because you are incompetent and dishonest. You and many others do not understand that the string/M theory acts incorrectly due to the wrong initial conditions, you and many others do not understand that we cannot unify the gravity with the Standard Model because of the infinities that appear in these both fundamental theories. Just we need new methods that I described in my Everlasting Theory. You and many others do not understand that we cannot describe origin of the basic physical constants because we need the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. the Everlasting Theory.

    For decades scientists cannot solve the above basic problems but they are solved within the Everlasting Theory. And there is not an alternative way to solve these fundamental problems. Just there is no alternative for the Everlasting Theory.

    All can see that you are big liar. In many my posts I proved it.
    BTW, do you understand now, due to my post, the relations between axiom and theorem?

    Arrivederci Roma. I should not discuss with incompetent and dishonest persons.
     
  15. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Here

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

    you can find my new paper titled “Infinity, Spacetimes and the Origin of Nature”. To eliminate the dichotomy of infinity i.e. the infinity understood as both a simple continuum without any boundaries or the ever-increasing sequence, we must introduce pieces of space. Applied mathematics should be defined as mathematical methods starting from pieces of space placed in the infinite nothingness. Since in such theory, information is not lost so such theory is mathematically coherent and reversible. Saturated geometry leads to the Planck length. Our cosmos, and many others, appeared due to inelastic collision of two or more very big fully-filled volumes of space. Only granular/discrete and kinetic geometry can be the foundations of coherent description of Nature. Here are formulated the fundamental axioms as the foundations of ontology. Entanglement of the Einstein-spacetime components leads to both psychology and particle physics. Due to the infinities that appear in the Quantum Physics and Gravity, unification of these two basic theories is impossible - it needs new methods.
     
  16. AlphaNumeric Fully ionized Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,702
    You have yet to demonstrate either. Clearly you don't realise that simply asserting something doesn't make it valid, both in terms of your comments about me and in terms of physics.

    Where to start....

    1. Infinities are not a death blow to a viable model of physical phenomena, they just have to be handled in a consistent and coherent manner. Given you don't understand even the most rudimentary mathematical physics pertaining to things such as renormalisation your blanket dismissal of it amounts to little more than "I don't like it". But then you dismiss or redefine anything which isn't your own work and therefore you'd make an excuse to throw away mainstream physics, infinities or not.

    2. More 'traditional' physics includes similar concepts in similar ways. Newtonian mechanics and electromagnetism both include notions of infinities, such as the self energy of a point mass or charge. This doesn't prevent them saying viable things about physical phenomena.

    3. String and M theory were constructed to precisely address a number of these issues the naive combination of GR and QFT leads to. String theory is UV complete (no doubt another concept you don't know or understand but may well steal for future dishonesty) and thus does not have the infinite divergences associated to the Standard Model or naive quantised GR. The string and membrane lengths introduce structures which prevent those UV infinities from developing.

    4. Neither I nor the entirety of the community who have partaken in string or M theory research believe that they are necessarily correct and exact.

    5. Neither I nor the entirety of the research community believe that quantum field theoretic approaches will necessarily lead to a theory of everything.

    Insufficiently justified. Simply dismissing an alternative idea to your own purely because you believe your work is correct and thus anything else must therefore be wrong is not valid justification. Even if you had a fully fleshed out working model, having addressed (something) the fatal flaw in your work I've pointed out numerous times, which was tested and validated at the LHC for a decade that doesn't mean you get to automatically dismiss alternatives. A good scientist will always allow for the possibility they are wrong and thus should never work with the logic "I believe X is right. Y is not X. Therefore Y is wrong". Instead they should be constantly checking and testing both X and any potential alternatives Y. To stop doing this is to move into the realms of dogma, not science. You not only are not within the realms of science, you don't know what science even looks like.

    An example of this kind of unjustified dogmatic approach you have is how you assert that your model has 7 parameters only, which you regularly bring up as a positive point, and it is impossible to have a viable model with less. Therefore you summarily dismiss any alternative which has less than 7 parameters, despite you having provided no rigorous argument as to why the nature of Reality is certainly such that there are 7, and only 7, parameters which cannot be deduced from purely logical thought. When I point out string theory has no free parameters you don't say "It must be mistaken because...." and then give an airtight logical argument, you say "My model has 7 and that's the best!". You wouldn't and don't accept it when I just assert "String theory has 0" yet you expect me to accept your baseless assertion? Oh please....

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    The only way you can say "The Everlasting Theory is definitely true" is if you can provide an absolutely perfect logical argument as to why reality is not only as you describe but that it couldn't be any other way. If you cannot do this then no amount of experimental data will ever be enough to make your assertion valid. Until then you are claims and dismissals amount to "I believe X is right. Y is not X. Therefore Y is wrong".

    "Basic" is an inappropriate adjective. And they aren't solved in your work. Your inability to even grasp the fatal flaw in your claims I've repeatedly pointed out testify to that.

    I'm beginning to think you aren't even reading my posts. I explicitly asked you to point out where you supposedly show I don't grasp the difference. Considering I've spoken at length on this forum about axioms and theorems and what they are and how they are related I have demonstrated as grasp of them, such as in this recent post (by no means an isolated example). Funny how when I ask you to point to this post you're referring to you ignore me. Either you didn't read my post at all, in which case you're trolling, or you did and deliberately ignored my request, in which case you're trolling.

    So why do you come here? No one replies to you other than me and I just laugh at you. As I've asked you repeatedly and you refuse to reply, if you were really and truly wanting to get your work into the mainstream you'd not be posting it on a forum, you'd be submitting it to journals, each time taking on board reviewer comments to try to improve it. None of the people on this forum who have published work in reputable journals post their papers here, they (we) are the good sense to discuss our work in appropriate places, such as the scientific literature and conferences etc. Posting as you do on a forum is a clear sign you have no real interest in doing real physics, you just want to dupe laypersons.

    Vixra, a glorified web hosting provider swamped by people who cannot convince anyone reputable in the research community to vouch for them so as to get posting rights on ArXiv. Like I keep saying and you keep ignoring, if you were really wanting to do proper honest science you'd not be posting your work here, you'd be communicating with journals. Uploading nonsense onto Vixra is a long way from passing peer review in a reputable journal, something you don't only wouldn't manage but which you seem

    Given you are unable to do even basic vector calculus or linear algebra, the mathematical methods used in applied mathematics to describe dynamics, I don't think you're in any position to be declaring what applied mathematics should or shouldn't be. But then the same is true about 'string theory' or 'effective theory' and in both cases you just made up your own definitions. Didn't get you anywhere anyway.

    Okay, I'll bite. Definition 'saturated geometry' formally.

    If you're unwilling to give a formal mathematical definition of 'saturated geometry' perhaps you'd like to answer the questions I asked you in my last post. I'll repeat them so you cannot claim ignorance : You complain when you perceive me to have lied about your work so why do you think a researcher would ignore when you lie about his work? Do you think a string theory researcher at Princeton or Cambridge is going to stop working on string theory and work on your stuff just because you put the phrases "T duality" or "gauge invariance" in your work, using them in ways which are utterly contradictory to their established meanings in mathematical physics?
     
  17. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    AlphaNumeric, I should not discuss with you because you are incompetent and dishonest. But I appreciate your efforts to write the long posts. You still do not understand what you are reading. You write something I never wrote, next you claim that I wrote it and next you prove that I am not right. Just we can see the tremendous gallimaufry. It is not characteristic for a competent and in good health mathematician.

    Feynman wrote that due to renormalization we cannot prove cohesion of the QED. It is because in this theory we subtract two infinities in ad hoc manner to obtain the mass of electron taken from EXPERIMENT. This means that due to the renormalization the QED is an incomplete theory. This means that I am entitled to describe the origin of the all weak points in the QED and to show the correct solution. It is in my Everlasting Theory. Can you see now how stupid are your sentences?

    It is true. I never claimed that it is untrue. Whereas I wrote that the assumption “a point mass or charge” causes that this theories are incomplete so there appear many wrong interpretations and it is described in the Everlasting Theory.

    Just I ended to write my new paper titled “Why Unification of Gravity and Standard Model is Impossible? It will be published soon. This is the reason why I will not discuss the above problem with you now. It is because you are dishonest. I can write only that there are the FUNDAMENTAL reasons why the GR+QTFs unification is impossible. The GR+QTFs theories, such as the string/M theory and quantum gravity, will be the science fiction forever. It is obvious that in the string/M theory instead the point bare particles (they lead to the singularities and infinite energies of fields) there is the Planck-size closed string that eliminates the singularities and infinities. But there appears new big problem that causes that the mainstream string/M theory will be the useless theory forever. Just the Planck-size closed string never will explain the origin of the basic physical constants that are DIRECTLY associated with the Planck length. They are the Planck constant, the gravitational constant and the speed of light. Much more arguments you will be able to find in my new paper.

    Super! You know, my reformulated string/M theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory. There is the ultimate equation that includes masses of sources of ALL types of interactions.

    I never wrote such thing. I many times wrote that the Everlasting Theory is the LACKING PART OF ULTIMATE THEORY. Many parts of the mainstream theories are correct! But they are incomplete and partially incorrect so there appears tremendous number of wrong interpretations and mathematics that Nature cannot realize.

    AlphaNumeric, here you proved that you completely do not understand the problem. We can derive Nature from nothingness and moving pieces of space. But these conditions do not lead to experimental data. We can start from, for example, 3 physical constants (i.e. three parameters) but they never will lead to the all experimental data. I proved that when we start from 7 parameters then we can calculate the all basic results and they are consistent with experimental data. There is not some other theory (it concerns the string theory as well) that contains less parameters and within which we could be able calculate at least the some number of results (they must be consistent with experimental results) as it is in the Everlasting Theory. You know, the Occam’s razor says that plausible explanation contains the simplest ideas and least number of assumptions. And it concerns the lacking part of ultimate theory i.e. the Everlasting Theory.

    AlphaNumeric, you wrote as follows.

    It is untrue. I proved it.

    If you wish….I never lie about researcher works. You just wrote the nonsense and there are not some grounds. Researchers will not be going to stop working on string theory. But some day they will change the incorrect initial conditions. Just today they do not see that their string theory is useless due to the incorrect initial conditions. It is obvious that there is something beyond the mainstream theories BECAUSE THEY DO NOT LEAD TO ORIGIN OF THE BASIC PHYSICAL CONSTANTS. Only my theory leads. And it is the reason that I claim that the Everlasting Theory is the lacking part of ultimate theory.

    The power of my theory follows JUST from its simplicity. Just the Occam’s razor says the true.
     
  18. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    I separated the answer to the above question from my last post since it is something new.

    In physics, geometry is associated with spacetime, more precisely, with the perfect gas composed of the moving pieces of space. I assume that the Occam’s razor says the true so in saturated geometry a reference frame should consist of only three perpendicular/orthogonal directions. This means that there can be MAXIMUM 6 semi-axes tagged in couples. This means that phase space of the moving pieces of space should contain MAXIMUM 6 elements that describe position, shape and motions of the pieces of space. Our knowledge of Nature leads to conclusion that the 6 elements should be the 3 spatial coordinates (x, y, z), mean radius of the pieces (r) of space that defines their mean inertial mass (they are the gravitationally massless pieces), their mean linear velocity (v) that is directly associated with time, and their mean angular velocity (ω) that on higher levels, due to the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime, leads to the internal helicities of the Principle-of-Equivalence particles.

    It is the saturated geometry. From such spacetime, from such conditions should start the ultimate theory and it is in the Everlasting Theory.

    The first phase transition of the fundamental spacetime leads to my closed strings. Their phase space contains 10 elements. The second phase transition leads to the Einstein-spacetime components. Their phase space contains 26 elements. It is not true that the 10 - 4 = 6 are the higher spatial dimensions.
     
  19. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Here

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

    you can find my new articles titled:
    Origin of Symmetries and Symmetry-Breaking in Physics
    and
    Why Unification of Gravity and Standard Model is Impossible?"

    In the first article I prove that the fundamental spacetime is perfectly symmetrical. In the era of inflation there appeared the four-neutrino symmetry. The CPT symmetry is incomplete so wrongly understood. Symmetry-breaking is characteristic for the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime based on the half-integral spin constancy. The matter-antimatter asymmetry is due to the fourth phase transition of the fundamental spacetime, not due to a CPT-symmetry violation.

    In the second paper I proved that the term “force” does not mean the same in the two basic theories. The unification of these two basic theories is impossible due to the different properties of the two parallel spacetimes one associated with the GR and the second with SM. Origin of such splitting/bifurcation follows from the internal structure of the Einstein-spacetime components. Since the size of the Einstein-spacetime components is close to the Planck length so the origin of the splitting/bifurcation concerns the sizes smaller than the Planck length. In both theories we neglect internal structure of bare particles so there appear singularities and infinite energies of fields. This causes that within the GR and SM we cannot understand the fundamental differences between classical and quantum theories. The same concerns the string/M theory because this theory starts from wrong initial conditions i.e. objects of the Planck size are not some simple loops/closed-strings. They look as a miniature of an active galaxy, for example, the NGC 4261. There is the torus and ball in its centre. The smallest closed strings have size much smaller than the Planck length and are the perfect circles carrying the half-integral spin as well. The real supersymmetry, i.e. the fermion-boson symmetry, differs very much from the supersymmetry that leads to the undetected s-particles and gauginos.

    BTW, the quantum physics is timeless. There are no trajectories so there is not some time evolution of a quantum system. Within the CORRECT quantum physics we cannot find EXACT solution dependent on time for the time-dependent differential equations. We can do it only for some approximations, applying mathematical tricks and free parameters. So what we can do? The quantum physics acts as follows. There disappear one ENERGETICALLY stable configuration and appear other stable configuration, and so on. This means that we can find the sets containing the energetically stable configurations and their probabilities. There are the statistically stable configurations. In correct quantum physics the time-dependent differential equations lead astray. We must change the methods applied in the quantum physics and the Everlasting Theory shows how we can do it. Just this lacking part of ultimate theory is free from the time-dependent differential equations so this theory is free from approximations, mathematical tricks and free parameters and leads to the exact results. In this theory, the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime are the energetically stable configurations.
     
  20. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Here

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

    you can find my new article titled:
    Magnetic Moments and Masses of Hyperons
    In this paper, within the lacking part of ultimate theory, i.e. the Everlasting Theory, I calculated the magnetic moments and rigorous masses of hyperons. The theoretical results overlap with experimental data or are very close to them.
     
  21. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    Here

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

    you can find my new article titled:

    Quantum Physics in the Lacking Part of Ultimate Theory”.

    Within the Everlasting Theory I derived the fundamental equation of the Matrix Quantum Mechanics i.e. the commutator. It follows from the phase transitions of the fundamental spacetime that are based on the half-integral-spin constancy. The fundamental equation results from the entanglement that leads to the infinitesimal transformations. The Matrix Quantum Mechanics leads to the time-dependent wave function that is characteristic for the Statistical Quantum Mechanics. It is the reason why the wave functions appear in the equations of motion. The presented here extended Matrix Quantum Mechanics leads to the methods applied in the Quantum Theory of Fields and points the limitations.
     
  22. Markus Hanke Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    381
    I see he is at it here as well.
     
  23. Sylwester Kornowski Neutrinos are nonrelativistic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    703
    And....?

    Markus, AlphaNumeric will eat you for breakfast.

    Markus, you are too weak thinker to discuss on this Forum.
    But, of course, you can try. I encourage you. But if you will write here the caddish posts without scientific arguments then you will be banned very quickly.
     

Share This Page