New Cosmology (discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas)

[Fortis]

The Feynman QED also gives very good results though does not take into account the weak interactions.

It gives good results for those cases where the weak interaction is less important, e.g. the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron. For muons, on the other hand, you need to include the weak interaction. This is what the electroweak theory is all about. QED forms part of electroweak.

The QCD (also all theories based on the perturbation theory with the renormalization) contains too much controlled parameters which gives possibility to match the theoretical results to experimental data.

I said that they predicted the mass of the charmed B meson, i.e. the prediction came before the measurement. How did they fudge the parameters to give them the correct answer when no-one, at the time, knew the correct answer?

My theory does not contain CONTROLLED PARAMETERS! (only the four physical constants plus three well known masses).

Good for you. Did your theory correctly predict the mass of the charmed B meson?

What about B meson?
If it is really whole history then maybe probability (there is very big zoo of particles)?

I think that what you are suggesting here is that there are so many particles that there was a good chance that at least one particle would provide a good match for the predicted mass. What you are forgetting is that the prediction wasn't that there would exist some particle with a particular mass. The prediction was that the charmed B meson would have a particular mass. When the experimentalists measured the mass, they were not trying to measure the mass of some random particle. They set out to measure the mass of the charmed B meson. All of a sudden, what you appear to be suggesting looks very unlikely.

As an aside, have you considered that your hypothesis regarding this prediction may also apply to your claimed success in matching particle masses?

It is very well known that the QCD is unable predict the mass of quarks. The masses of quarks were defined in such way to obtain the experimental data.

Why should QCD predict the mass of the quarks? Does GR predict the value of G? Does QED predict the value of e?

Of course we hope that a theoretical framework may exist that would allow us to predict the masses of the quarks (as well as a whole bunch of other parameters), but that is not what QCD is about. Take a very simple example, using Newtonian gravity and Newtonian mechanics, I can predict the force between two masses. What I could not do, within that framework, is predict what the masses were. I would have to measure them somehow.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Good for you. Did your theory correctly predict the mass of the charmed B meson?

I think that what you are suggesting here is that there are so many particles that there was a good chance that at least one particle would provide a good match for the predicted mass. What you are forgetting is that the prediction wasn't that there would exist some particle with a particular mass. The prediction was that the charmed B meson would have a particular mass. When the experimentalists measured the mass, they were not trying to measure the mass of some random particle. They set out to measure the mass of the charmed B meson. All of a sudden, what you appear to be suggesting looks very unlikely.

Because you FORTIS and LADYATTIS provoke me to more detailed explanations connected with the B mesons, I decided to extend my description. From below explanations results that my calculations and my description very differ from the calculations and the description within the QCD.

As I said from my theory of structures results that the core of baryons contains torus and central mass built of neutrinos. Outside of the equator of torus is obligatory the Titius-Bode law in which the ratio A/B=1.3899 has the same value as for the solar system! In baryons there are only four orbits (d=0,1,2,4). Why? It is explained in my book (the free e-copy attainable via my website – see #1), and it explains the range of the strong interactions. From my theory it results that the coupling constant for the strong interaction has for orbit d=0 (i.e. for the equator of torus) value alfa(strong, d=0)=0.9938. Also from my theory results that the coupling constant for the weak interactions of baryons is equal to alfa(weak)=0.018722.
Question is as follows: how many times must be greater the mass of a baryon in order to the weak interactions of baryons were the same as the strong interactions for the rest baryons?
Answer: 0.99381/0.018722=53.083 times greater.

It means that the difference between masses of charged and neutral pions created in state d=0 in baryon (i.e. the pair ‘electron plus electron-antineutrino’) has mass:
(139.567-134.966).53.083=244.236 MeV
Binary system of two such objects has mass:
kaon(neutral)=2 . 244.236=497.674 MeV
If we divide this value by the mass of the neutral pion we obtain the factor for binary system from my post #288:
497.674/134.966=3.6874

In the post #288 I calculated mass of meson D.
Now I calculate masses for other binary systems.
It is fragment of my book published in 1997:
We can build the analogues of deuteron and of triton from the pions and photons (added: precisely from the pions and the large neutrino loops; the neutral pion is built from two large neutrino loops so one loop has mass equal to about 67.5 MeV). The energy of each photon is equal to the half of the mass of neutral pion. The pions are the analogues of neutrons and the photons are the analogues of protons.
The letter ‘a’ denotes the mass of object built of the neutral pion and one photon
m(neutral pion and loop)=202.449 MeV
or built of the charged pion and one photon
m(charged pion and loop)=207.050 MeV
The parity of these objects is P=+1 because both the pion and photon have the negative parity so the product has positive value.
The letter ‘b’ denotes the mass of two neutral pions and one photon
m(two neutral pions and loop)=337.415 MeV
or the mass of two charged pions and one photon
m(two charged pions and loop)=346.617 MeV.
The parity of these objects is P= -1.
In particles built of the objects ‘a’ and ‘b’ the spins are oriented in accordance with the Hund law (the sign ”+” denotes spin oriented up, the sign ”-” denotes spin oriented down, word ”and” separates succeeding shells)
+- and +- +++--- and +- +++--- +++++----- and etc.
We have two pions of different masses so I assume that the mesons are built in 50% of the charged pions (25% charged positively and 25% charged negatively) and in 50% of the neutral pions. The calculated number of charged pions we can round to the nearest even number. If this number is odd then we subtract 1. Then the meson nucleus is electrically neutral.
Below I present the composition of well-known mesons (the mass is given with accuracy of 1 MeV):
m(eta)=1a+b=549 MeV
m(omega)=2a+b=751 MeV
m(eta’)=3a+b=954 MeV
m(upsilon)=8a+23b=9500 MeV
m(upsilon’)=4a+27b=10049 MeV
m(upsilon’’)= 31b=10598 MeV

The minimal mass of meson(eta) is equal to 539.9 MeV.

So for the three lightest meson nuclei we have:
m(eta, minimal)=539.9 MeV
m(omega)=751 MeV
m(eta’)=954 MeV
Now we can calculate the masses of binary systems built of different components.

The following masses are not calculated in my book (you provoked me to do it – thank you!):
D(strange)=m(eta, minimal 539.9) . 3.6874=1,991 MeV
B=[m(eta, minima 539.9)+kaon*(892)] . 3.6874=5,280 MeV
B(strange)=[m(eta’ 954)+kaon(497.7)] . 3.6874=5,353 MeV
B(charm)=[m(omega 751)+m(eta’ 954)] . 3.6874=6,287 MeV

In the last case, if we take into account the experimental facts i.e. m(omega 784) and m(eta’ 958), we obtain:
B(charm)=6,423 MeV

Are you satisfied?

[Fortis]

B(charm)=[m(omega 751)+m(eta’ 954)] . 3.6874=6,287 MeV

In the last case, if we take into account the experimental facts i.e. m(omega 784) and m(eta’ 958), we obtain:
B(charm)=6,423 MeV

Are you satisfied? [/B]

I'll address the rest of your post later, but I just want to quickly ask you which of these values you are claiming as your post-hoc theoretical value for the charmed B meson?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I'll address the rest of your post later, but I just want to quickly ask you which of these values you are claiming as your post-hoc theoretical value for the charmed B meson?

Strictly theoretical, derived from my theory of structures, is result 6,287 MeV.

[Nereid]

My theory predicted between others:
1.Existence of analogs to the Ketterle surface (1996) – experiment in 2005
2.That there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma (1985) – experiment in 2004
3.That at the beginning of the Big Bang there had to exist the superquasars (2001) – observation in 2005
4.That the big stars of first generation should be grouped in larger structures (2001) - observation in 2005 by the Kashlinski group

Item 3 has been discussed earlier (post numbers are from the Sylwester Kornowski's cosmology ideas thread; bold red added for ease of reference):

I read this article; it does not mention 'superquasars' - is this your own term?

I did, however, find some discussion of how 'monster quasars' could have formed as early as ~800 million years after the BB; quite the opposite of what you state, the author presents an explanation for how they could have formed so early.

Perhaps you have a technical paper or three to support your claim?

Are the 'monster quasars' which Barger refers to the same as the 'superquasars' you talk about? If so, please present details of the correspondence between predictions from your idea and what has actually been observed. Please do NOT repeat details of your idea, simply a comparison between predictions from it and observations (e.g. a table, or come charts).

'Superquasar' it is my own term (see #1, this thread).

I see that you are a kibitzer of the inflationary theories.
They theories say that just after the Big Bang there were the tiny ripples, next there were the most dense objects (the monster quasars) and now there are the galaxies which have lower density. Can you see that it is nonsense? In my theory with time the density decreases, in the theories in force today says that the density in some stage of evolution increased and next decreased. Why? In my opinion it is utopia.

Why do theories in force nowadays need revision? Because they are unable to give answers to following questions:

-why the most distant objects, i.e. the big stars discovered by the A.Kashlinsky group, are placed close to each other? If the inflationary model is correct then distribution of the first objects should be ideal.
In my theory it is obvious because the big stars were created on the surfaces of the monster quasars and these superquasars existed before the Big Bang.

-if A.Sakharov theory is correct (for one billion anti-baryons there was created one billion plus one baryons) so where is the energy of annihilation baryons-antibaryons? Why the temperature of our World is only 2.735K? Of course some scientists can create science fiction which has nothing with physics and physical laws.

-why large concentration of energy in empty areas of space did not lead to strong curvature of our World?

-why in our near-by surroundings we do not observe many quasars? They should be if the larger structures were created from smaller structures.

-why do the cosmic structures have such and not other sizes?

and so on.....

My theory gives answers to all these questions but theories in force today do not. In my opinion it is childish game.
Edit/Delete Message

There relevant section of "#1, this thread" reads: "From experimental data it results that the massive superquasars existed since the beginning of the Big Bang then the Cosmological Standard Model is incorrect. My new theory of the Big Bang and evolution of the Universe and the other elementary particles was completed in 1997."

This article refers to the following:

If I have understood your idea correctly, these 'superquasars' are a key (astronomical) prediction of your idea; when you do have time, I think providing us with links to reports of the observations of these objects should be a high priority item.

See Scientific American, January 2005.
Article: “The Midlife Crisis of the Cosmos” by Amy J.Barger.
There is about the monstrous quasars in early stage of evolution of our World.

There was no time to create such objects then the inflationary theories are incorrect.

So a key request for validation of Sylwester's 'superquasar' claim remains unmet, namely: "please present details of the correspondence between predictions from your idea and what has actually been observed."

Sylwester, please either meet this request, or retract your claim.

It is in my book attainable in the Jagiellonian University Library.
All these predictions confirmed by the experimental data and observational facts are inconsistent with the Standard Models (i.e. with the Cosmological Standard Model, with the QCD, and others).

In my book registered in IJTP there are also other predictions which will prove that my ultimate theory is correct. For example for sample containing 100% of protons my theory predicts that the mean of squares of charges of the proton components is equal to 0.25e^2, the quark model gives value 0.33e^2 - it was in my papers registered in scientific journals since 1985. Also my theory predicts that the central part of the core of Earth must be built of uranium(238) and lead. I feel sure that future experiments will prove it. I am also sure that future experiments will prove that there does not exist the taon-neutrino.

How large (mass, radius) is 'the central part of the core of Earth' that is 'built of uranium(238) and lead'?

[Nereid]

Returning to examine item 4 (my bold):

My theory predicted between others:
1.Existence of analogs to the Ketterle surface (1996) – experiment in 2005
2.That there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma (1985) – experiment in 2004
3.That at the beginning of the Big Bang there had to exist the superquasars (2001) – observation in 2005
4.That the big stars of first generation should be grouped in larger structures (2001) - observation in 2005 by the Kashlinski group

Here are some references Sylwester has made to this item, earlier in this thread:

The big stars of first generation GROUPED IN LARGE CLUSTERS (because were created on the surface of the protogalaxy or on the surface of a cluster of protogalaxies i.e. on the surface of superquasar) were discovered by A.Kashlinsky group.

From my theory it results that the first generation of big stars discovered by the Kashlinsky group created clouds containing 74% of hydrogen and 26% of helium.

I calculated how much of the DM is in our World (80% of all baryonic mass i.e. 4 times more than the visible matter) and I said that this DM was created by the big stars discovered by the Kashlinsky group.

9.The protogalaxies were grouped in larger structures before the Big Bang.

PROOF
The big stars discovered by the Kashlinsky group were grouped in larger structures so the inflationary models are incorrect.

In my theory the DM it is iron with impurity of nickel. The mass of the DM was equal to 80% of 1.83 . 10^51 kg just after the era of big stars discovered by Kashlinsky group.

Clearly the work of the "Kashlinsky (or Kashlinski) group" is very important to Sylwester's idea, in that it provides good observational support for a key aspect. What is this work? Post#161 and #162 provide the reference:

Sylwester, please confirm that this is the paper you are referring to:
A. Kashlinsky, R. G. Arendt, J. Mather and S. H. Moseley; Tracing the first stars with fluctuations of the cosmic infrared background, Nature 438, 45-50 (3 November 2005):

The deepest space- and ground-based observations find metal-enriched galaxies at cosmic times when the Universe was less than 1 Gyr old. These stellar populations had to be preceded by the metal-free first stars, known as 'population III'. Recent cosmic microwave background polarization measurements indicate that stars started forming early—when the Universe was 200 Myr old. It is now thought that population III stars were significantly more massive than the present metal-rich stellar populations. Although such sources will not be individually detectable by existing or planned telescopes, they would have produced significant cosmic infrared background radiation in the near-infrared, whose fluctuations reflect the conditions in the primordial density field. Here we report a measurement of diffuse flux fluctuations after removing foreground stars and galaxies. The anisotropies exceed the instrument noise and the more local foregrounds; they can be attributed to emission from population III stars, at an era dominated by these objects.

Here is the arxiv pre-print: astro-ph/0511105

Post #162 is Sylwester's confirmation.

In the mainstream, this is the first (?) claim of finding Population III stars (albeit only indirectly).

However, even though this paper came out only in 2005, it has already been cited five times. Unfortunately, it seems that Kashlinsky et al. may have jumped the gun a bit - none of the five papers citing their work provides independent confirmation (though only three address confirmation, and none via independent observation). This is not surprising; the signature of Pop III stars from the early universe is expected to be very faint; most folk think its unambiguous detection will have to wait for the JWST.

While this doesn't change Sylwester's prediction, it does remove the observational support he claims for it.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Can you clarify please:
* how big (radius, mass) is the core (where the GASER reactions take place)?
* how quickly (if at all) do GASER products move out of the core (also, how quickly does fresh material move into the core)?
* to what extent does the transport of products and fresh material depend upon factors such as ionisation state and mass?
* what is the radial density, temperature, and (element) composition profile of the Sun?

How will a star of sol mass evolve (power vs time)?

It is beyond a doubt that inside stars acts the GASER because:
1. the GASER explains the solar neutrino problem in natural way,
2. explains why amount of the dark matter increases with time (at the beginning about 24%, now about 25%),
3. explains why there are big ‘peaks’ for H, He(4), Fe(56) on function describing the abundance of chemical elements in the visible Universe.

In general I do not relate to other theories because in my opinion they are based on wrong assumptions:
1. they do not take into account that there acts the GASER,
2. they do not take into account that there is obligatory the four-neutrino supersymmetry,
3. they do not take into account that the structure of all particles is completely different
4. they do not take into account that the initial conditions just after era of the big stars was completely different (80% Fe+Ni, 14.8% H, and 5.2% He)
5. they do not take into account that the biggest neutron stars intensively evaporated just after the Big Bang,
6. they do not take into account that the dark energy it is the neutrino bulge-bubble which interacts weakly with the matter of visible Universe (for example the Feynman QED does not),
7. they do not take into account that the structure of nuclei of atoms have different structure (see in my book),
8. they apply wrong formula for the redshift what leads to wrong description of first stages of evolution of the visible Universe,
9. they assume that the A.Sakharov theory is correct.
I cannot compare my theory with such theories.

As I said in prior posts, I am engaged in astrophysics only sporadically. In my book does not exist detailed description of evolution of stars. Creation of such detailed description of evolution of stars is not difficult within my theory but it takes time. If you wish I can present a program of evolution of stars.

(to be continued)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

S.K, there is another point that I realized is NOT complete. This is the nature of dark matter.

I realized it can't be Fe-Ni lumps as you say, because this would be detectable in the amounts required to account for the observed mass as huge dust clouds. Also, note how the galactic core is obscured by fine dust. A dimming effect would at least be observed if Fe-Ni lumps consisted of the mass we know as dark matter.

So, this part of your theory is not consistent with observation.

I know it may sound like beating a dead horse in your view, but it is about the only issue that I can really understand in this discussion. I'll leave the physics to more qualified individuals.

I answered this question in prior posts (see ##160, 198).

[Sylwester Kornowski]

According to your theory all object larger then neutrino are built of neutrinos. It means that baryons are built of neutrinos. This neutrinos have to interact with each other in a specific structures characteristic for each particle. Such a structure may be reproducible and scientists call it quark.

This structure does not exists separate and independent. It is not possible to divide an elemental charge but there might be a structure with 3 spatial interactions inside one particle around this charge suggesting division of this charge by 3.

For me quarks are rather a systematic of a structure system.
Neutron structure is not just a proton structure + electron structure. It is like a small stick with top and bottom + long stick with top and bottom. You get a longer stic but with one top and one bottom.

Your eterions, higgsons and neutrinos may create the reproducible structures too, I think.

Most important is explanation of the structure of electric charge. Your explanation it is only some proposal.
I never agree with 'explanations' which contain physical terms but do not contain physical meaning of these terms. Such situation we have generally in the mainstream theories. In my theory all physical terms have the physical explanations. It distinguish the correct theories from the incomplete theories (most of them are incorrect, especially theories which contain the imaginary values and containing many controlled parameters).

[Grand_Lunar]

I answered this question in prior posts (see ##160, 198).

Just how important is it in your idea for DM to be Fe-Ni masses?

While the individual lumps may not be detectable, the mass as a whole would be detectable. There are many ways it would be observed, as has been pointed out.
As I pointed out, we would see it as a large cloud of dust around a galaxy.
This would be especially true of a recently observed "dark matter galaxy".

To more readily conform with observations, why not explain dark matter as one of the particles you proposed? Why not as a mass of neutrinos? That would make more sense than Fe-Ni masses.

If this part of your idea cannot be resolved, than it pretty much renders your claim that your view of the universe being correct a moot point.
You may think the discussion is closed, but in reality, it is the weakest part of your claims and the most readily testable, therefore it is open.

It is beyond a doubt that inside stars acts the GASER....

In your view, this is the point. However, you have not tested your idea in simulations or by any other means. So, there is doubt. That is why GASER is not taken into account.

[Nereid]

Can you clarify please:
* how big (radius, mass) is the core (where the GASER reactions take place)?
* how quickly (if at all) do GASER products move out of the core (also, how quickly does fresh material move into the core)?
* to what extent does the transport of products and fresh material depend upon factors such as ionisation state and mass?
* what is the radial density, temperature, and (element) composition profile of the Sun?

How will a star of sol mass evolve (power vs time)?

It is beyond a doubt that inside stars acts the GASER because:
1. the GASER explains the solar neutrino problem in natural way,
2. explains why amount of the dark matter increases with time (at the beginning about 24%, now about 25%),
3. explains why there are big ‘peaks’ for H, He(4), Fe(56) on function describing the abundance of chemical elements in the visible Universe.

The purpose of this ATM section of BAUT is to challenge - with glee and fervour - just such unsubstantiated assertions.

1. the GASER explains the solar neutrino problem in natural way Then your challenge would be to define "natural" in a sufficiently robust and objective fashion that any of us (not to mention the professional communities) could assess your claim.

Please provide such a robust, objective, substantiatable definition of 'natural'.

2. explains why amount of the dark matter increases with time (at the beginning about 24%, now about 25%) Your challenge here is to demonstrate, using good observational and experimental results that 'the amount of dark matter' is increasing with time, by the amount that your idea predicts.

Please provide such a demonstration.

3. explains why there are big ‘peaks’ for H, He(4), Fe(56) on function describing the abundance of chemical elements in the visible Universe. Your challenge is to first show that there are, indeed, just these "big 'peaks'", and to quantify them. In light of your self-professed radical revision of (all? most of?) the physics which underlies astrophysics, which in turn is what underlies most of the inputs that you seem to use to support your claims, it seems to me that this is a task of dozens of lifetimes.

Let's start simply: please provide an outline of the good experimental and observational results which lead you to your claim about the big peaks (and state what those peaks are). Then please provide an outline showing that the experimental and observational results would be unchanged if the underlying physics used to derive them were replaced with SK physics.

In general I do not relate to other theories because in my opinion they are based on wrong assumptions:
1. they do not take into account that there acts the GASER,
2. they do not take into account that there is obligatory the four-neutrino supersymmetry,
3. they do not take into account that the structure of all particles is completely different
4. they do not take into account that the initial conditions just after era of the big stars was completely different (80% Fe+Ni, 14.8% H, and 5.2% He)
5. they do not take into account that the biggest neutron stars intensively evaporated just after the Big Bang,
6. they do not take into account that the dark energy it is the neutrino bulge-bubble which interacts weakly with the matter of visible Universe (for example the Feynman QED does not),
7. they do not take into account that the structure of nuclei of atoms have different structure (see in my book),
8. they apply wrong formula for the redshift what leads to wrong description of first stages of evolution of the visible Universe,
9. they assume that the A.Sakharov theory is correct.
I cannot compare my theory with such theories.

Thank you for this frank statement of the extent to which your ideas radically depart from those used by astronomers, in their work of converting spectra, colours, intensities, etc detected in many electromagnetic bands (and some neutrinos and cosmic rays) from distant objects into estimates of things such as composition, age, evolutionary history.

As I indicated above, it seems to me that none of your ideas can be tested, using any astronomical data whatsoever ... unless and until you show that the physical parameters (ages, compositions, etc) derived from the direct measurements are the same (or very similar) using SK physics as using mainstream physics.

Perhaps I have misunderstood; if so, please clarify.

As I said in prior posts, I am engaged in astrophysics only sporadically. In my book does not exist detailed description of evolution of stars. Creation of such detailed description of evolution of stars is not difficult within my theory but it takes time. If you wish I can present a program of evolution of stars.

BAUT is, above all, an astronomy and space science discussion forum; this ATM section is for attacking (ATM) ideas in these fields. If you you are unable or unwilling to provide predictions from your idea that are amenable to testing within astronomy, cosmology, and space science, then perhaps BAUT is not an appropriate place to present your ideas?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

BAUT is, above all, an astronomy and space science discussion forum; this ATM section is for attacking (ATM) ideas in these fields. If you you are unable or unwilling to provide predictions from your idea that are amenable to testing within astronomy, cosmology, and space science, then perhaps BAUT is not an appropriate place to present your ideas?

If ‘your’ astronomy is limited to the astrophysics then BAUT is not for my ideas.
My astronomy consists also of cosmology and cosmological particles.
You probably have an ill-will because it is obvious that one man cannot answer all your questions and recreate whole astronomy starting from new assumptions. Of course many fragments of the mainstream theories are correct if they start not from fundamental assumption and if the assumptions are based on good observational results and are based on correct theories (for example on the Einstein theories and on the quantum mechanics).

(to be continued (perhaps))

[Nereid]

If ‘your’ astronomy is limited to the astrophysics then BAUT is not for my ideas.
My astronomy consists also of cosmology and cosmological particles.
You probably have an ill-will because it is obvious that one man cannot answer all your questions and recreate whole astronomy starting from new assumptions. Of course many fragments of the mainstream theories are correct if they start not from fundamental assumption and if the assumptions are based on good observational results and are based on correct theories (for example on the Einstein theories and on the quantum mechanics).

(to be continued (perhaps))

Apologies if my post was ambiguous.

Let me try to state this another way, and address your "My astronomy consists also of cosmology and cosmological particles." comment too.

The BAUT rules that apply to this ATM section are pretty clear. As a moderator, one of the things I try to do is ensure that threads, posts, and discussions in this ATM section follow these rules (I also try the same thing, for other sections of BAUT; however, those other sections do not have a special ATM rule).

Sylwester Kornowski has chosen to present his ideas here in this ATM section; BAUT members are welcome to attack those ideas with glee and fervour. The attacks must be on the ideas (not the person), and should be consistent with the scientific methods used in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, and space science.

It seems to me that, due to the rather dramatically different fundamentals of SK's ideas, from the physics which underlies astrophysics and cosmology, together with SK's unwillingness or inability to translate his ideas into predictions that can be tested using the vast amount of good experimental and observational data pertaining to cosmology, astronomy, and space science, we have no basis for discussing SK's ideas.

Now, I could be quite wrong about this - if any reader feels that I am, please say so (and please at least outline how we could go about having a discussion of SK's ideas, within the framework of BAUT's ATM section).

About cosmology: Sylwester has, many times, made claims pertaining to cosmology.

We could examine those claims for internal consistency; however, I submit that that would entail obtaining his paper and studying it.

We could examine Sylwester's claims for inconsistency between his idea and other (physics, cosmology) theories. To some extent we've been doing that, and have identified dozens of such inconsistencies.

Finally, and of greatest interest to me, not-the-moderator-Nereid, we could examine Sylwester's ideas for inconsistency with good observational and experimental results. Sylwester has provided ~20 specific predictions from his idea, relating to cosmology. Many, if not all, of these predictions have been discussed. I submit that many, if not most, of SK's csomology predictions cannot be tested ... because they rely upon the outputs of mainstream astrophysics (whose physics foundation Sylwester rejects, and whose alternative, consistent-with-SK-physics outputs Sylwester has not calculated).

I will shortly provide a summary of the status of all cosmology-related SK predictions, as discussed in this and other SK-idea threads.

Oh, and one other thing: we do have a thread for discussing the BAUT rules. If anyone feels that the ATM rules are in need of amending (or if you have comments about them), please provide your suggestions there.

[Jim]

Outside of the core of baryons is obligatory the Titius-Bode law. The ratio A/B=1.3899 has the same value as for the solar system.

Your "theory" seems to be pinned on the Titus-Bode Correlation. This is far from being a Law in scientific terms. No one has ever confirmed a reason for it, it is based on arbitrarily setting the third body to 1.0, it predicts a planet where none is and fails to predict one where one is, it misses UB313 entirely, it was proposed to explain how the solar system formed (indeed, it's misses are attributed to changes since formation), and it works outside our solar system only about 30% of the time.

Also, why should any correlation on the macro-scale work the same way on the (very) micro-scale?

Until you can explain why we should trust Titus-Bode, any validity your "theory" may have must be suspect.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

JIM, I applying the Titius-Bode rule to the structure of baryons have obtained a few hundred best results, for example the mass of proton equal to 938.28 MeV (see #15). It means that the Titius-Bode rule we may recognize as physical law.

[Thomas(believer)]

Sylwester Kornowski has chosen to present his ideas here in this ATM section; BAUT members are welcome to attack those ideas with glee and fervour. The attacks must be on the ideas (not the person), and should be consistent with the scientific methods used in the fields of astronomy, cosmology, and space science.

If I am right, Wolverine put this discussion over here. See http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.ph...75&postcount=3

First, I try to follow this discussion sometimes but I don't have the knowledge to really understand the subjects. Still I find it interesting.

To me Sylwester is a man who knows where he is talking about, he has a solid theory where he stands for and seems very open to me by giving a copy of his book for free.

I suppose that Sylwester came to this board to have a serious discussion about his theory and not persé to only be "attacked".

Sometimes it needs controversal ideas to make breakthroughs.
And these ideas might not be very trivial. I don't even think it can be easily tested with observational data, because when it would follow easily from observed data it probably would be a mainstream idea already.

Please continue this discussion with fervour.
Maybe this discussion should be more contructive. To me that is not only attacking the points you find weak,
but also discuss the parts you find strong.

I like Sylwester's theory, but this is very subjective, because it is based, if I understood well, on a universe build only with one particle.

I would like to have a copy of the book. So if it is not a problem to you, you can send a copy to tgmvm@hotmail.com

Thanks

[Jim]

JIM, I applying the Titius-Bode rule to the structure of baryons have obtained a few hundred best results, for example the mass of proton equal to 938.28 MeV (see #15). It means that the Titius-Bode rule we may recognize as physical law.

No, it means you have an intriguing mathematical correlation.

Explain how it should work and you may have a theory.

Test the theory a few thousand times with no negative results, have others do so independently, and you can begin to think of a law.

So, tell me, how does Titus-Bode - a correlation applied (imperfectly) to the solar system - work at the sub-atomic level?

[Nereid]

JIM, I applying the Titius-Bode rule to the structure of baryons have obtained a few hundred best results, for example the mass of proton equal to 938.28 MeV (see #15). It means that the Titius-Bode rule we may recognize as physical law.

In the last few years many exo-solar planetary systems have been discovered (here is one site which tracks these discoveries). At first it was just a single planet per system; now there are nearly 20 multiple systems (and even planetary systems around pulsars).

When you apply your idea to exosolar planetary systems Sylwester, what do expect (in terms of the masses, orbits, etc)? Does your idea allow you to predict which stars will have planetary systems and which not? Of course, this data is highly public ... in the early days even small city daily newspapers carried news of discoveries, sometimes on their front pages. How well does application of the SK idea to exosolar systems match observations? In particular, what does your idea predict re the as-yet-undiscovered (smaller) planets in the multiple systems found so far?

[Fortis]

Strictly theoretical, derived from my theory of structures, is result 6,287 MeV.

As the measured result of 6287 MeV for the mass of the charmed B meson has an experimental uncertainty of 5 MeV, doesn't it seem a bit of a coincidence that your post-hoc calculation predicts exactly the same value as the measurement?

[Fortis]

1. the GASER explains the solar neutrino problem in natural way,

I didn't think that there was a "solar neutrino problem." If you look at the total neutrino flux from the Sun you get very good agreement with prediction, and the notion of particle mixing is not too weird. Take a look at the neutral kaon, for example.

[Fortis]

I'll get to this post in full, but I just wanted to check the values.

Below I present the composition of well-known mesons (the mass is given with accuracy of 1 MeV):
m(eta)=1a+b=549 MeV

Measured value is 547.75 +- 0.12 MeV

m(omega)=2a+b=751 MeV

Measured value is 782.59 +-0.11 MeV (You seem to be out on this one.)

m(eta’)=3a+b=954 MeV

Measured value is 957.78 +- 0.14 MeV

m(upsilon)=8a+23b=9500 MeV

Measured value is 9460.30 +- .26 MeV

Do you have any comment?

[ladyattis]

I say once more, you do not read my e-book (it is free e-copy attainable via my website - see #1), you also do not read my posts.

I have read parts of your book and parts of your post. And I have found them lacking in two key areas.

First, you have not falsified the existence of quarks or gluons. Do you even know the principle of Falsifiability? I assume that you being in near in proximity to the Vienna school of philosophy, that you yourself would know the concept. So, I will explain for you and the audience at home.

Falsifiability is the most simplist concept you can come across and the most misunderstood, simply put falsifiability assumes that one cannot verify their theory, but rather that one can falsify it. How does this work? It works by on the fact that any proposition, whether its premises or conclusion(s) are true must follow the same deductive structure necessary for it to be logically valid. Thus, if Sylwester's argument is indeed true, then it would not be too hard for him to accept the reality that his argument must have its 'false' form, which is deducible as negation[~ in symbolic logic]. Now, the basic principle here is that Sylwester must show where quarks are experimentally falsified, he has not. So, anyone here in their right mind to reject the theory by default since it does not follow from empirical, and more specifically, logical grounds. Since his theory is merely a rationalization or reconceptualization of a non(rather than un)-falsified theory, meaning the theory has not be proven to be untrue in reality, although it has a falsified form for it to have the possibility of being untrue when tested.

There does not exist the quark-gluon plasma, and just after the Big Bang there were the most dense cosmic objects.

Saying something is so does not make it so. Show me the experimental data, please.

To explain the structure of gravitational field and the structure of weak charge of neutrino we need two particles smaller than neutrino. The infinite Universe is filled with these two types of particles and neutrinos.

It doesn't infer that quarks have been falsified out.

-ties microcosm with macrocosm,

And? Good for you, there's also Loop-Quantum Gravity, Holographic Principle, and M-Theory to contest as well. I suggest you take your time and consider your ideas critical.

-contains minimal number of parameters and only 1 fundamental particle

Rationality without empirical proof is baseless or as Ayn Rand would put it 'floating abstraction.'

-leads to correct mainstream theories (to Einstein theories, and to quantum mechanics)

There are no such thing as mainstream theories. There are theories that have been falsified and theories that have been not. I suggest, since you claim to be a scientist that you follow the correct convention.

-proves which theories connected with structures are incorrect,

Nope, you need to falsify the existing theory/paradigm first.

-gives BEST results, authors of other theories may only dream it.

And? Math is math, not experimental data.

Also today ‘your’ mainstream theories are based on wrong assumptions (see my prior posts).

There are no 'your' theories. There are only falsified or yet to be falsified theories. Please follow the correct convention.

-- Bridget

[Sylwester Kornowski]

1. the GASER explains the solar neutrino problem in natural way Then your challenge would be to define "natural" in a sufficiently robust and objective fashion that any of us (not to mention the professional communities) could assess your claim.

Please provide such a robust, objective, substantiatable definition of 'natural'.

‘Natural’ it means that an explanation does not contradicts the phenomena seen in the whole visible Universe.
Examples for the not natural explanations:

1. The claim that point particles (i.e. small in relation to the distance between them) can attract one another stronger when are in larger distance (i.e. quarks). It is big nonsense! The all phenomena in the whole seen space contradict such behaviour of point objects.
In my model of baryons we have core, outside of core is obligatory the Titius-Bode law, and on orbits are pions. It is NORMAL explanation which does not contradicts the behaviour of point objects.

2. The claim that particles may oscillate (i.e. can change into antiparticles) is unnatural because the all phenomena in the whole seen space contradict such behaviour of particles. Is there anyone who saw that an electron transformed into positron, or proton into antiproton?! Such oscillations could destroy beautiful women!!!!!!!!!
In my model such oscillations are impossible, and all observed electron-antineutrinos and others are created in the sun (not also in the space between the sun and Earth).

(to be continued)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I have read parts of your book and parts of your post. And I have found them lacking in two key areas.

First, you have not falsified the existence of quarks or gluons. Do you even know the principle of Falsifiability? I assume that you being in near in proximity to the Vienna school of philosophy, that you yourself would know the concept. So, I will explain for you and the audience at home.

Falsifiability is the most simplist concept you can come across and the most misunderstood, simply put falsifiability assumes that one cannot verify their theory, but rather that one can falsify it. How does this work? It works by on the fact that any proposition, whether its premises or conclusion(s) are true must follow the same deductive structure necessary for it to be logically valid. Thus, if Sylwester's argument is indeed true, then it would not be too hard for him to accept the reality that his argument must have its 'false' form, which is deducible as negation[~ in symbolic logic]. Now, the basic principle here is that Sylwester must show where quarks are experimentally falsified, he has not. So, anyone here in their right mind to reject the theory by default since it does not follow from empirical, and more specifically, logical grounds. Since his theory is merely a rationalization or reconceptualization of a non(rather than un)-falsified theory, meaning the theory has not be proven to be untrue in reality, although it has a falsified form for it to have the possibility of being untrue when tested.

Thank you for this explanation.
Since 1985 I show where quarks are experimentally falsified, I have not. But quarkers block it, probably because they know that I am right.
I suggest to repeat the Friedman, Kendal, Taylor experiment (1973) with greater accuracy. It is in my book! This experiment was made for samples containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons. For the samples containing different numbers of protons and neutrons my theory gives different results than the QCD. For example for the sample containing 100% of protons my theory gives result 0.25, the QCD gives result 0.33. It means that the QCD gives value 32% higher! It is no problem to measure such difference today. But politics of quarkers wins.

(to be continued)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

As the measured result of 6287 MeV for the mass of the charmed B meson has an experimental uncertainty of 5 MeV, doesn't it seem a bit of a coincidence that your post-hoc calculation predicts exactly the same value as the measurement?

My calculations you can find in post #302. Where I may find the last experimental result for the mass of the B(charm) meson?
If it is true what you wrote above then it is very good information for me and my theory. Thank you.
I say once more that theoretical mass of proton calculated within my theory is 938.28 MeV. It means that accuracy of this result is much greater than for the mass of the B(charmed) meson. See that for other long-lived particles the theoretical results also are very good (see #15).

[ladyattis]

Thank you for this explanation.
Since 1985 I show where quarks are experimentally falsified, I have not. But quarkers block it, probably because they know that I am right.

That doesn't follow. In fact, again The Dzed[Zero] particle gives more creedence to there being quarks than not. Unless you can formulate a new composition of the particle.

I suggest to repeat the Friedman, Kendal, Taylor experiment (1973) with greater accuracy. It is in my book! This experiment was made for samples containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons.

One experiment produces correlation, not causation. It's standard statistics and methodologies class.

For the samples containing different numbers of protons and neutrons my theory gives different results than the QCD. For example for the sample containing 100% of protons my theory gives result 0.25, the QCD gives result 0.33. It means that the QCD gives value 32% higher!

32% higher? No lets do the standard arithematic. .33 - .25 = .08 That is only an 8% higher rate. Now, that doesn't invalidate the calculation, but your arithematic is off.

It is no problem to measure such difference today. But politics of quarkers wins.

I don't think this is an issue of politics. It's an issue of science.

Also, you have several competing theories to falsify as well. Also, where are you getting this 'Quarkers' idea from? Seriously, come to Wichita State, we got a Cyonics lab and a NMR machine, none of the professors espouse QCD[or Lattice QCD] as the defacto queen of particle theories. In fact, they have their own reservations. So please, unless you can name names I don't think politics should be injected into a scholarly debate.

-- Bridget

[Grand_Lunar]

So please, unless you can name names I don't think politics should be injected into a scholarly debate.

This is the second time this has come up with SK. It's also a forum rule violation.

I don't think its an issue of your theory being blocked, SK. Rather, its more like people having trouble taking the theory seriously in light of observations.
The superluminal particles you mention are a prime example. It's hard to take that idea seriously because such a thing violates SR, which is observed with GPS systems.
GASER is another idea that's hard to take seriously, being unproven and untested.

Since 1985 I show where quarks are experimentally falsified, I have not. But quarkers block it, probably because they know that I am right

I might have missed something, but could you, in laymen terms if you please, explain how you showed quarks are experimentally falsified?

Your dark matter issue is also very questionable.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

No, it means you have an intriguing mathematical correlation.

Explain how it should work and you may have a theory.

Test the theory a few thousand times with no negative results, have others do so independently, and you can begin to think of a law.

So, tell me, how does Titus-Bode - a correlation applied (imperfectly) to the solar system - work at the sub-atomic level?

I explained it in my book and in prior posts.
For the solar system see #35, thread 'SK cosmology ideas (was 'Before the Big Bang'), and ##126, 154, 170, this thread. For the baryons this problem is explained in my book; free e-copy attainable via my website - see #1.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I'll get to this post in full, but I just wanted to check the values.

Quote SK:
Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
Below I present the composition of well-known mesons (the mass is given with accuracy of 1 MeV):
m(eta)=1a+b=549 MeV

Measured value is 547.75 +- 0.12 MeV

Quote SK:
m(omega)=2a+b=751 MeV

Measured value is 782.59 +-0.11 MeV (You seem to be out on this one.)

Quote SK:
m(eta’)=3a+b=954 MeV

Measured value is 957.78 +- 0.14 MeV

Quote SK:
m(upsilon)=8a+23b=9500 MeV

Measured value is 9460.30 +- .26 MeV

Do you have any comment?

My theoretical results lead to the very good values for the D and B mesons. It means that probably experimental estimation of the mass of the short-living omega meson is wrong.

Generally I think that consistence between the experimental and theoretical results is very good.

[korjik]

‘Natural’ it means that an explanation does not contradicts the phenomena seen in the whole visible Universe.
Examples for the not natural explanations:

1. The claim that point particles (i.e. small in relation to the distance between them) can attract one another stronger when are in larger distance (i.e. quarks). It is big nonsense! The all phenomena in the whole seen space contradict such behaviour of point objects.
In my model of baryons we have core, outside of core is obligatory the Titius-Bode law, and on orbits are pions. It is NORMAL explanation which does not contradicts the behaviour of point objects.

2. The claim that particles may oscillate (i.e. can change into antiparticles) is unnatural because the all phenomena in the whole seen space contradict such behaviour of particles. Is there anyone who saw that an electron transformed into positron, or proton into antiproton?! Such oscillations could destroy beautiful women!!!!!!!!!
In my model such oscillations are impossible, and all observed electron-antineutrinos and others are created in the sun (not also in the space between the sun and Earth).

(to be continued)

huh? not even the solar system follows the titus bode law. why would you be using a worthless correlation?

neutrino oscillation is not between particle/antiparticle, and does not apply to electrons or protons. Neutrino oscillation is between the 3 flavors of neutrino.