Discussion in 'Alternative Theories' started by Sylwester Kornowski, Oct 5, 2011.
Axis of evil?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
We use it in the mainstream cosmology.
I think you mean axes of weevils.
As usual, your knowledge is impressive.
Actually, I do not recall hearing the somewhat tongue-in-cheek 'term axis of evil' to refer to the slight fluctuations in CMB that align around an axis. Not really statistically significant but interesting. It is good to see that you are still writing and discovering that your everlasting theory has the answer to every single question in the universe. As I recall at some point you were rather sick, I hope you are in good health.
You forgot to write that my Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) has provided some results that are consistent with LATER experimental results (see post 833), and that within the SST we can calculate basic quantities that are not calculated within the mainstream theories from initial conditions (for example, physical constants or exact spin and mass of proton).
Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)
The Origin of the Illusory Periodic Changes in the Gravitational Constant
Anderson et al. have found that experimental values for gravitational constant, G, are oscillatory with a period of P = 5.899 +- 0.062 yr and an amplitude of A = (0.001619 +- 0.000103) F, where F is a factor that is the inverse of the 11 powers of ten expressed in SI Base Units. The period P correlates with the 5.9 year periodic signal in length of day (LOD).
Previously it was assumed that changes in LOD follow from fluid core motions and inner-core coupling. But the origin of the G/LOD correlation is still not explained.
Next, Schlamminger et al. have found that corrections to the G data reported by Anderson et al. significantly weaken the G/LOD correlation. But in Table III there appears the fit sinusoidal function for G with period fixed at 5.93 year.
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show the origin of the periodic changes in LOD and the illusory changes in G and the origin of the experimental amplitude of G that is illusory as well. The calculated period of LOD and illusory period of G are both 5.941 yr whereas illusory amplitude of G is 0.00183 F. Here, the 5.941 year periodic signal in LOD we interpret as due to advection of the virtual cloud, composed of the virtual electron-positron pairs produced by Earth, caused by its interactions with the dark-matter (DM) structures that overlap with the Earth orbit. Such advection follows from the confinement and entanglement of virtual electrons and positrons and DM structures. The advection causes periodic increase in mass of Earth and measuring apparatus. The amplitude of the changes in mass of Earth follows directly from masses of nucleons (we must take into account the nuclear binding energy) and electrons. The changes in mass lead to the illusion of periodic changes in G. The SST results are consistent with experimental data.
Moreover, SST shows that the real changes in G can be infinitesimal only.
Below is the link to my new paper (4 pages)
Modification of the Reactor Neutrino Model
The measured prompt spectra in the RENO experiment show an excess of reactor electron-antineutrinos around 5 MeV relative to the prediction from a most commonly used model. This observation suggests that we should modify the current reactor neutrino model.
Here, applying the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show the origin of the excess of reactor electron-antineutrinos around 5 MeV.
We also explain why in the average nuclear fission there is released about 4.5% of energy as the radiation of neutrinos.
The calculated within SST excess of the ~ 5 MeV events should constitute about 2.6% of the total observed reactor neutrinos. This result is close to the RENO result ~ 3%.
BTW: Recently it is suggested that the dark matter is made of black holes. The Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) shows that it is untrue. Just due to evolution of the cosmic structure created before the beginning of the expansion of the Universe, the dark matter structures (they consist of the entangled neutrino-antineutrino pairs the luminal gravitating Einstein spacetime consists of) are entangled with the black holes composed of the neutron black holes – it is the superluminal quantum entanglement.
The “soft” big bang of the Universe, i.e. its expansion, was separated in time from the initial proper big bang i.e. from the superluminal inflation which created the finite two-component spacetime.
The quantum entanglement of the dark-matter structures and black holes leads to an illusion that dark matter is made of black holes.
Below is the link to my new paper (2 pages)
The Origin of the X-Boson with a Mass of 16.70(85) MeV Discovered by the ATOMKI Group
The ATOMKI group discovered the X-vector-boson with a mass of 16.70(85) MeV in the decays of highly excited nuclei.
Here, applying the atom-like structure of baryons described within the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show the origin of such light, neutral boson. We show that the sum of the nuclear weak mass of a pair of Einstein-spacetime condensates produced by nucleons and the mass of electron-positron pair is 16.904 MeV (these two pairs can interact due to the confinement or quantum entanglement described within SST) - this value is consistent with ATOMKI data.
We should modify the Standard Model by incorporating the SST.
Below is the link to my new paper (3 pages)
A Light, Neutral Boson with a Mass of 18.4 MeV as the Binder of the Second Composite Higgs Boson with a Mass of 742 GeV or/and 750 GeV and the Tetraneutron
Applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), which describes the phase transitions of the inflation/Higgs field, we show that a light, neutral boson with a mass of 18.4 MeV that consists of four entangled parts (theory of neutrinos described within SST shows that there is valid the four-object symmetry), is the binder/precursor of the second Higgs boson with a mass of 742 GeV or/and 750 GeV.
The ATOMKI group has adequate equipment to detect the light, neutral boson with a mass of about 18.4 MeV whereas the LHC experiments can show which one of the two possible mass states of the second composite Higgs boson dominates.
The four-object symmetry and the atom-like structure of baryons lead to the resonant tetraneutron state and to the internal structure of the neutron stars/black-holes.
Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)
Interactions of the Dark-Matter Loops with Stars via Leptons Solve the Rotation Braking
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we described the origin of the two intervals of the rotation braking and two plateaus in the curve describing rotation velocity of the main-sequence normal stars as a function of the spectral classes. We did it involving the interactions of the dark-matter (DM) loops with the electron and proton vortices in stars.
Calculated here the advection velocity of the proton vortex is about 414 km/s, of the electron vortex is about 10 km/s whereas the mean value is about 212 km/s. The threshold rotational velocities follow from the fact that in hottest stars, near equator, there dominate the light ions, next in colder stars there dominate the neutral light atoms, and next in coldest stars there are created heavier neutral atoms so gravity transfers the angular momentum to the cores of stars.
We showed as well that the DM structures are perfectly elastic so it is very difficult to detect them.
We answered following question: How should we plan an experiment to detect dark matter?
Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)
Interactions of the Dark-Matter Loops with Baryonic Matter Once More
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we present a recapitulation concerning the main formula describing the interactions of the dark-matter (DM) loops with baryonic vortex or stars via the condensates composed of the Einstein-spacetime components.
We show that within the same model we can explain very different problems such as the non-gravitational orbital motions of stars outside the bulge of spiral galaxies, different upper limits for radii of accretion discs of black holes, the illusory changes in gravitational constant or the rotation braking of the main-sequence normal stars.
We calculated upper limit for mass of single DM loop - it is about 17 powers of ten lower than the mass of electron.
Here as well we motivate why the mainstream big bang of the Universe cannot be realized by Nature.
Below is the link to my new paper (7 pages)
Detection of a Dim Sphere Composed of Massive Cold Galaxies (they Consist of Bare Neutron Black Holes) at Mean Redshift 0.6415 will Validate the Scale-Symmetric-Theory Cosmology
In a cosmic scale of a few hundred Mega-parsecs, according to the General Relativity (GR) cosmology, the mean number density of massive galaxies (mass greater than 11 powers of ten multiplied by solar mass) should be about 0.0072 massive galaxies per cubic Mpc whereas according to the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST) should be 0.0067. We can see that both results are similar, about 0.007.
On the other hand, the surveys of massive galaxies lead to number densities about 10 times lower. It leads to conclusion that there must be big number of dim massive galaxies. N. Trujillo formulated following question: Where are the untouched massive “relic” galaxies in the nearby Universe?
Here, applying the SST, we show that most of them should be close to the threshold redshift 0.6415 and they should be composed of the bare neutron black holes. Such dim sphere of massive galaxies forces the radial acceleration of all galaxies at redshift about 0.35 up to 0.6415, and deceleration of all galaxies above such threshold redshift. We showed that the postulated within the GR cosmology an acceleration of expansion of spacetime is an illusion (for redshift 0.35 up to about 0.6, we observe an acceleration whereas for redshift higher than about 0.6, we observe a deceleration). In reality, the SST shows that there indeed are the regions of acceleration and deceleration but their existence follows from the gravitational attraction of the massive dim sphere at mean redshift 0.6415.
Future more precise surveys of galaxies should confirm that the SST cosmology is correct.
In the last paper concerning the sphere composed of cold massive galaxies at redshift 0.6415, I described new problems. Number of pages increased from 7 to 11.
I described the number density of massive galaxies as a function of redshift and, separately, as a function of the Scale-Symmetric-Theory (SST) time distance, I compared the SST, General-Relativity and Special-Relativity relative recession velocities (RRV), I solved the luminosity problem of quasars, and we described the redshift quantization within a fruitful model that explains also the non-gravitational motions of stars in spiral galaxies, external radii of accretion discs around black holes, the illusory changes in gravitational constant, and the rotation braking of the main-sequence normal stars.
Lack of intuition in physics transforms mathematical physics in circus.
It concerns the string/M theory and quantum gravity (they still are useless), the three-valence-quarks model of neutron and proton (we still cannot calculate exact mass and spin of such fundamental particles), main part of the General-Relativity cosmology (we cannot "sew together" the distant and local Universe), the higher spatial dimensions instead additional degrees of freedom, theory of black holes with central singularity (mass density cannot be infinite), and, of course, the mainstream Big Bang (of course, there was a big bang), and so on.
There appeared paper “Dark energy from the motions of neutrinos”
A simple description of it you can find in article “Could Dark Energy Be Caused By Frozen Neutrinos?”
You can compare it with my Scale-Symmetric-Theory (SST) model
To explain the expansion of the Universe, authors assumed that “as neutrinos become non-relativistic (here it means that their velocities are lower than the speed of light in “vacuum” c), their velocities begin to align with the gradients in the local gravitational potential.”
On the other hand, in my SST model, the neutrinos are non-relativistic as well but it means that their speed is still very close to c but their mass does not depend on their velocities. In SST, the dark energy consists of the FREE (“free” means that then they interact gravitationally only) NON-ROTATING-SPIN (we can call them the frozen objects but it concerns the rotational energy, not velocity) NEUTRINO-ANTINEUTRINO PAIRS. Moreover, the radial local velocities of the expanding field composed of the free neutrino-antineutrino pairs can change from 0 to c but initially the velocities were negative.
Can you see that their model is very similar to the SST model? The difference is that in their model are frozen neutrinos whereas in my model are the frozen neutrino-antineutrino pairs but the fields composed of the frozen neutrinos and frozen neutrino-antineutrino pairs expand in the same way.
Notice that the SST model gives much more and much better results – for example, within the SST model we calculated the abundances of the baryonic matter, dark matter and dark energy for early and present-day Universe from the initial conditions. For the present-day Universe we obtained respectively 4.91%, 26.46% and 68.63% - it is consistent with the observational data.
Below is the link to my new paper (5 pages)
The Mechanism of the Two-Stage Explosions of Type I Superluminous Supernovae
Here, applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we described the mechanism of the two-stage explosions of the hydrogen-poor Type I superluminous supernovae (SLSNe-I).
We calculated their quantized masses: 3.14, 6.28, 12.55 and 25.10 solar masses, maximum absolute magnitudes for the initial and main explosions and we solved the ejecta-velocity problem.
The derived light curves are consistent with observational data.
Below is the link to my new paper (6 pages)
The Titius-Bode Law Once More
We do not reject the mainstream theory of the creation of the Solar System saying that its formation was due to the gravitational collapse of a region within a large molecular cloud about 4.6 Gyr ago. Indeed, the Sun and the outer shells of planets appeared due to such processes.
But applying the Scale-Symmetric Theory (SST), we show that initially there was a modified black hole composed of neutron black holes that due to the inflows of the dark energy, via a supernova (there appeared other stars as well), transformed into the large molecular cloud and next into the Sun and outer shells of planets and dwarf planets.
Moreover, we showed that the initial modified black hole created the planetary rings defined by the Titius-Bode Law (TBL) for the gravitational interactions - they transformed into the seeds of planets – this happened in the a few Gyr old Universe.
The TBL for the gravitational interactions cannot be discredited due to the fact that it does not predict the Neptune orbit. The complete TBL for the nuclear strong interactions described within SST (SST shows that the core of baryons is a modified black hole in respect of the strong interactions), which is an analog to the TBL for the gravitational interactions, leads to an orbit that corresponds to the orbit of the planet Neptune. Both TBLs follow from the virtual processes near modified black holes of the same strength - it is because involved masses in gravitational TBL are about 61 powers of ten times higher than in nuclear-strong TBL.
Deviations from predicted semi-major axes are from -5.6% for Mercury up to +5.3% for Neptune.
According to gravitational TBL derived within SST, there are following planets or (dwarf planets): Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, (Ceres), Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and (Pluto) (theory of prime numbers leads to 10 planets/dwarf-planets defined by TBL).
Because of high probability of destruction of the Titius-Bode orbits during the evolution of the modified black holes, the Solar System is unique in the Universe.
Here we calculated the semi-major axes of listed planets/dwarf-planets from the initial conditions (for Earth we obtain 0.971 AU).
Are you trying to be funny.
As usual, only stupid taunts.
As usual, lack of scientific arguments.
Separate names with a comma.