New Cosmology (discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas)

[Nereid]

what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

[snip]

I admit that you are right if you answer following questions:
-what is the physical meaning of the neutrino oscillation? The answer is connected with the internal structure of neutrinos. There does not exist mainstream theory which describes this structure (besides mine). From my theory it results that such oscillation is impossible.
-can the electron anti-neutrino transform also into the taon neutrino? If not then why?
-what differentiate the electron-, muon- and taon- neutrino? (I mean the INTERNAL structure). From my theory it results that there does not exist the taon neutrino (see #42, thread 'Professor W.Ketterle....').
-What is physical meaning of sentence: the neutrino can interact gravitationally and weakly.

My theory can give answers to these questions, but your, Nereid, the mainstreams theories cannot. Why? Because they are incomplete and incorrect.

Sylwester, this is not a debate.

May I remind you, yet again, of the Rules For Posting To This Board, specifically that concerning ATM ideas (my bold):

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST. This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.

If it appears that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, you will receive one warning, and if that warning goes unheeded, you will be banned.

Now, please answer the question: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

[Grand_Lunar]

I can't really answer your questions, Sylwester, because I don't have those answers.
Again, look at the BA's site that I directed you to.

And as Nereid says, what part of the mainstream theories are wrong concerning this subject? What is incomplete and incorrect about them?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Dear NEREID,
Dear GRAND LUNAR,

Now, please answer the question: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

My ultimate theory gives correct answers to all fundamental questions connected with cosmology and particle physics. There is no such theory but mine. From my theory it results that the oscillations of neutrinos are impossible. I predicted many effects and I now foresee that the effects connected with the observed 'oscillations of neutrinos' must have some other explanation (today I do not know what but I know that I am right because of the probability).
The solar neutrino problem is as follows:
We observe about three times less of the electron anti-neutrinos than it follows from the model which assumes that the neutrinos are created only in the transformations of hydrogen into helium.
What is my explanation of this solar neutrino problem. Astrophysicists claim that the temperature in central part in the Sun is too low to transform helium through oxygen, carbon and nitrogen into iron with impurity of nickel. I say that these transformations are possible because the created from hydrogen helium is a catalyst. If we assume that the released binding energy in these two basic transformations has the same value (i.e. hydrogen into helium and helium into iron) then the observed number of the electron anti-neutrinos will be consistent with the result obtained within my theory.
What does it mean?
It means that if at the beginning of the Sun there was 74% of hydrogen and 26% of helium then today the percentage must be as follows:
73% H
23% He
4% Fe + (O+C+N)
If we assume that in the centre of the Sun there is 3% of iron then for the external layer of the Sun we have:
about 75% H
about 24% He
about 1% O+C+N
As you can see it is consistent with the observational data but my explanation of the solar neutrino problem is quite different.
In the old stars in the external layers there is less helium than in the sun because some part of it was transformed into iron.

[Grand_Lunar]

Sylwester, any iron that is in the sun was there from the intial formation, not because it is being forming inside. Now you are going against the ideas held about the nuclear fusion that occurs in stars. If the sun was making iron, then, if I'm correct about this (Nereid, can you confirm), it would eventually result in a neutron star at the core, because the iron would just keep piling up inside.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I agree with you that inside the core of the Sun there may be also any iron from the initial formation. It concern also the other stars because my the dark matter it is Fe+Ni.
You also are right that I am going against the ideas held about the nuclear fusion that occurs in stars. Why? The energy frozen inside the neutrino is tremendous (see #4, #26, thread 'Before the Big Bang') so to transform one type of neutrino into another type of neutrino we need tremendous amount of energy. Such oscillations are impossible in laboratory. As I said in #1, thread 'Professor Ketterle....' in my theory all objects larger than neutrino are built of neutrinos, also there exist the neutrino background. I think that experimenters detected some neutrinos from background but not emitted from the Sun. If not then there must be another explanation of the solar neutrino problem. I gave such explanation. This explanation it is result of my considerations connected also with age of stars. Conception that the younger stars contain more helium because were created from clouds containing more helium is false. Why? 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. Today there exist old stars containing about 20% of helium. It means that there is less helium (not more).
BUT IT IS TRUE THAT THE YOUNGER STARS CONTAIN MORE HELIUM.

In cosmology and particle physics there is great disorder and we must change it.

[Grand_Lunar]

The process of the fusion inside stars has been understood for decades now, not to mention observations support it, so why challenge it?
Since you seem reluctent to read what I suggested to you, I shall post it for you here:

According to theory, there are three types of neutrinos. What if we were only detecting one kind? Sure enough, once again when the technology caught up, it was determined that this is exactly what was happening! The kind of neutrino created in the solar furnace was created in numbers as predicted, but on route to the Earth changed their "flavor". Since we could only detect the one kind, we didn't see the other two kinds, and the number was only 1/3rd that of the original prediction. This problem is now solved (and I suspect it may earn someone a Nobel Prize someday too).

The above theory is fairly simple, and has been supported by observations, again as explained above. I do not seen anything wrong with it.
Also, as also explained, the neutrino problem was solved. Why do you continue to believe it hasn't?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The QCD predicted that in some conditions there must exist the quark-gluon plasma i.e. in these conditions should exist the free quarks and free gluons. Experiment carried out in 2004 (see #30-#34, thread 'Before the Big Bang') failed. It means that with the QCD is something wrong. It also means that probably there is something wrong with the three families of quarks and leptons.
On the other side in 2005 there was discovered the Ketterle surface. Existence of the analogs to this surface I predicted in 1996 and such analogs my theory predicts inside the neutrinos, nucleons (see thread 'Professor W.Ketterle....') and the Superworld (see thread 'Before the Big Bang'). As I said before, the results obtained within my theory have great accuracy-authors of other theories may only dream it (see my threads).

History teaches that sometimes great scientists make big mistakes.

[Grand_Lunar]

I'm still perplexed to the basis of your discussion.
From the the first part of your reply, it seems that because an experiment failed, that you assume then that the solution to the neutrino problem is wrong. Do you have details into that experiment, such as if they repeated it and got repeated failures?
Even so, remember that the sun is more of a BIG fusion reactor, not a particle accelerator.
Another issue confuses me. A conjecture was made as to the solution to the neutrino problem, and later was confirmed by observations. Are you saying then that the observations were wrong?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I'm still perplexed to the basis of your discussion.
From the the first part of your reply, it seems that because an experiment failed, that you assume then that the solution to the neutrino problem is wrong. Do you have details into that experiment, such as if they repeated it and got repeated failures?
Even so, remember that the sun is more of a BIG fusion reactor, not a particle accelerator.

There does not exist the quark-gluon plasma. It is experimental fact (2004-2005).
There exists my theory which predicted such experimental result in 1985.
This theory explains the results of the J.I.Friedman, H.W.Kendall and R.E.Taylor experiment (1973) in different more physical way (see #8, thread ‘Professor Ketterle…’). It is simpler to assume that inside nucleon there exist exchanges of elementary charge between the components of the nucleon than to believe in existence of quarks having the fractional charges – for sample containing 50% of protons and 50% of neutrons the results obtained within my theory and within QCD are consistent with the result obtained in 1973. Only for such sample there was realized the experiment in 1973. Since 1985 I suggest to carry into effect this experiment for other samples because the results are different.
In 1996 I foresaw existence of the analogs to the Ketterle surface (discovered in 2005). These analogs concern the internal structures of the neutrinos, nucleons and the Superworld.
And this: my results are best!!!!! and my theory contains only 7 parameters (not twenty as in the QCD).
It suggests that there is almost 100% of certainty that my theory is correct.

FROM MY THEORY IT RESULTS THAT THE NEUTRINOS CANNOT OSCILLATE.
FROM MY THEORY IT RESULTS THAT SCIENTISTS DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE NUCLEAR REACTIONS.

Someone said that a new theory wins not because this theory is correct but because authors of incorrect theories are dying. It is very inhuman for authors of new correct theories. Authors of incorrect theories block the new correct theory. Today such politics in science costs billions. The ITER will cost about 10 billion euros but in this TOKAMAK the output energy will be lower than the input energy (estimations for JET are untrustworthy). It results from my theory describing the internal structure of nucleons.
We may build much cheaper thermonuclear heating device which could produce a surplus energy. It will be my patent so I only may say that we know that there is needed very high temperature or very high pressure or both but we may apply some subterfuge.

Another issue confuses me. A conjecture was made as to the solution to the neutrino problem, and later was confirmed by observations. Are you saying then that the observations were wrong?

No. First there were observations, next there were speculations. I say that the speculations are wrong – the neutrinos cannot oscillate because of the great internal energy frozen inside the neutrinos (see #26, thread ‘Before the Big Bang’).
Women cannot be a little pregnant, they are pregnant or not.
You may eject all wrong interpretations in physics and cosmology or not one because these wrong interpretations are connected with the ground-work.

[Nereid]

At least some recent ones (with new numbering):

1) How much of this 'DM' (in the SK idea) is there in our solar system?

2) Have you (Sylwester Kornowski) attempted to make even OOM estimates of the mass (size) distribution function of the Fe/Ni which you claim comprises (all?) the DM in the universe?

3) [SK:"Most of the Fe/Ni CDM must be in the halos of largest cosmic structures. I assume that it will be detected in future observations."] Is this equivalent to saying that you cannot account for the constraints on baryonic mass (specifically, Fe/Ni) as a component of MW halo or rich cluster DM? Specifically, that you cannot show a plausible mass distribution function that is consistent with the observed MACHO (and other lensing surveys) results? with the observed IGM and MW halo (lack of) absorption (and emission) lines? with the observed lack of IGM and MW halo dust reddening?

4) How did the Fe/Ni get into the MW (and other galaxy) halo(s)? into the IGM of rich clusters? If it got there via some 'explosion' or other, by what physical mechanism(s) did it clump/come together to form macroscopic bodies?

5) [SK: "In my idea the all Fe/Ni CDM was created inside the big stars of first generation. The mass of it is 4 times greater than the mass of visible matter."] In rich clusters, the inferred amount of baryonic mass is ~15% (the vast majority of it as H and He); i.e. (non-baryonic) DM is ~7 times greater (by mass). This would seem to be inconsistent with the prediction from your idea. How do you account for this inconsistency?

6) [SK: "our Sun has iron-nickel core (about 3% of the mass of the Sun). In old stars there are larger the iron-nickel cores (about 12%). In the big stars of first generation, just before the explosion of such star, the iron-nickel core had the mass equal to 80% of the mass of the big star."] Have you run standard stellar (or even solar) models with these high Fe/Ni abundances?

[Nereid]

Here is what I asked, in post #41 and again in post #44:

What good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

Here is your answer:

Dear NEREID,
Dear GRAND LUNAR,

My ultimate theory gives correct answers to all fundamental questions connected with cosmology and particle physics. There is no such theory but mine. From my theory it results that the oscillations of neutrinos are impossible. I predicted many effects and I now foresee that the effects connected with the observed 'oscillations of neutrinos' must have some other explanation (today I do not know what but I know that I am right because of the probability).
The solar neutrino problem is as follows:
We observe about three times less of the electron anti-neutrinos than it follows from the model which assumes that the neutrinos are created only in the transformations of hydrogen into helium.
What is my explanation of this solar neutrino problem. Astrophysicists claim that the temperature in central part in the Sun is too low to transform helium through oxygen, carbon and nitrogen into iron with impurity of nickel. I say that these transformations are possible because the created from hydrogen helium is a catalyst. If we assume that the released binding energy in these two basic transformations has the same value (i.e. hydrogen into helium and helium into iron) then the observed number of the electron anti-neutrinos will be consistent with the result obtained within my theory.
What does it mean?
It means that if at the beginning of the Sun there was 74% of hydrogen and 26% of helium then today the percentage must be as follows:
73% H
23% He
4% Fe + (O+C+N)
If we assume that in the centre of the Sun there is 3% of iron then for the external layer of the Sun we have:
about 75% H
about 24% He
about 1% O+C+N
As you can see it is consistent with the observational data but my explanation of the solar neutrino problem is quite different.
In the old stars in the external layers there is less helium than in the sun because some part of it was transformed into iron.

I will ask this question again, a third time; continued failure to answer this direct question is a violation of the rules of this forum*: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

*note that "I don't know (of any such)" and "I've not worked this out" and similar are perfectly acceptable answers,

[Grand_Lunar]

...what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

More or less, I've asked the same thing. So, do this count as a fourth time?

I also find it hard to believe from SK that scientists do not understand nuclear reactions, especially since from 1945 to 1962 (if I remember right) we've been testing them (at least, in the atmosphere), to say nothing of the dozens of reactors we have.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Nereid, why I must once again answer to the same questions?

1) How much of this 'DM' (in the SK idea) is there in our solar system?

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. These big stars at first were created on the surface of largest structures (i.e. the megachains) of our young World built of protogalaxies which were grouped in larger structures (see #1, thread ‘Very massive black hole in Sagittarius’), next, when the density of our young World was lower, on the surface of the smaller structure (i.e. the superclusters) and so on to the more and more structures. Last of all there were the single typical black holes (the Oort’s belt it is some part of the DM created by a typical black holes. From this it results that the DM we must seek in the halos of these structures. Mass of DM in these halos must be proportional to the surface of these structures and proportional to the number of created big stars. Rest it is the astrophysics.

2) Have you (Sylwester Kornowski) attempted to make even OOM estimates of the mass (size) distribution function of the Fe/Ni which you claim comprises (all?) the DM in the universe?

Such calculations are simple but it is astrophysics. See point 1. I have no time for such recreation.

3) [SK:"Most of the Fe/Ni CDM must be in the halos of largest cosmic structures. I assume that it will be detected in future observations."] Is this equivalent to saying that you cannot account for the constraints on baryonic mass (specifically, Fe/Ni) as a component of MW halo or rich cluster DM? Specifically, that you cannot show a plausible mass distribution function that is consistent with the observed MACHO (and other lensing surveys) results? with the observed IGM and MW halo (lack of) absorption (and emission) lines? with the observed lack of IGM and MW halo dust reddening?

I am able calculate all what is connected with cosmology, particle physics, QED and also with astrophysics but finite time causes that I must concentrate on the most important problems. These most important problems are only partially connected with astrophysics
but in my opinion answers to your astrophysical questions number 2 and 3 we may in COSMOLOGY reduce to my answer given in point 1.

4) How did the Fe/Ni get into the MW (and other galaxy) halo(s)? into the IGM of rich clusters? If it got there via some 'explosion' or other, by what physical mechanism(s) did it clump/come together to form macroscopic bodies?

The protogalaxies were built of the typical black holes. After the Big Bang these typical black holes intensively evaporated. I described this mechanism in thread ‘Professor Ketterle….’
When the mass of a black hole exceeds the mass of typical black holes then creates disc because the dropping on the typical black hole particles could attain velocities higher than the light velocity. The neutrons placed on the surface of the black hole, in respect of the weak decays, emit the electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of black hole. Owing to the electric repulsion between electrons and to the strong spin polarization of the antineutrinos and electrons in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of the typical black hole, these electrons are accelerated to the velocities almost equal to the light velocity. Due to these emissions the surface of the typical black hole is charged positively. The electric repulsion of protons causes that the protons gather first of all in surroundings of the equator of the typical black hole. At last the electric repulsion exceeds the gravitational attraction and there take place the proton explosions in the plane of the equator of typical black hole. The rapid slow-down of protons creates the electromagnetic radiation. The proton streams carry away some neutrons what causes the additional emissions of electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions perpendicular to the plane of disc. The electron-antineutrino stream have the form of very strong collimated jet. Similar phenomena but on a larger scale took place in surroundings of the quasars. The emitted protons capture the electrons and create the protonuclei, from which after their transformation into the nuclei and electron gas, arise the big stars. Just before the explosion of a big star the composition of the big star is as follows: 80% Fe+Ni, 20% H+He in proportion 74% H and 26% He.
Protogalaxies collected in the supertorus had not evaporated because the number of emitted by defined protogalaxy electrons and electron antineutrinos was equal to the number of absorbed electrons and electron antineutrinos. Before the Big Bang the axes of protogalaxies were tangential to the circle inside the Supertorus.

5) [SK: "In my idea the all Fe/Ni CDM was created inside the big stars of first generation. The mass of it is 4 times greater than the mass of visible matter."] In rich clusters, the inferred amount of baryonic mass is ~15% (the vast majority of it as H and He); i.e. (non-baryonic) DM is ~7 times greater (by mass). This would seem to be inconsistent with the prediction from your idea. How do you account for this inconsistency?

See point 1. Inside the structures there is less the DM than in the halos. Examples are not far to seek. In the solar system most of the DM is in the Oort’s belt.

6) [SK: "our Sun has iron-nickel core (about 3% of the mass of the Sun). In old stars there are larger the iron-nickel cores (about 12%). In the big stars of first generation, just before the explosion of such star, the iron-nickel core had the mass equal to 80% of the mass of the big star."] Have you run standard stellar (or even solar) models with these high Fe/Ni abundances?

Yes. The second and third generation of stars were created from gas clouds containing about 74% H and 26% He. Why in stars there is less helium than at the beginning? Only my theory gives answer to this question. Also you can see that for the external layer of the stars we have (APPROXIMATELY!!!!! because stars differ in mass):
Time-life 5 billion years – about 24% He
Time-life 10 billion years – about 22% He
Time-life 15 billion years – about 20% He
BUT AT THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 26% He.
Can you see that with the evolutionary model of star is something wrong? We must assume that in the stars type the sun there are transformation of hydrogen into helium but also helium into iron. My theory of internal structure of nucleons and electrons explains why in the temperature about 15 million K (pressure about 3 . 10^16 Pa) there take place transformation of helium into iron.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I will ask this question again, a third time; continued failure to answer this direct question is a violation of the rules of this forum*: what good observational results, concerning the Sun and neutrinos, are inconsistent with mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation?

*note that "I don't know (of any such)" and "I've not worked this out" and similar are perfectly acceptable answers,

More or less, I've asked the same thing. So, do this count as a fourth time?

I answered but I see that I must say literally. The mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation are consistent with good observational results but these theories are incorrect. In my opinion theory was matched to observational results. The same was made in other great theories (there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma; the QED gives good results even if we do not take into account the weak interactions of electrons - the coupling constant of the weak interactions is only about 652 times smaller than the coupling constant of the electromagnetic interactions)!!!!!!!

I also find it hard to believe from SK that scientists do not understand nuclear reactions, especially since from 1945 to 1962 (if I remember right) we've been testing them (at least, in the atmosphere), to say nothing of the dozens of reactors we have.

Grand Lunar, you are joking. Of course you are right but we are talking about different objects. My theory of fundamental structures foresees new effects connected with fusion!!! I claim that scientists do not understand the structure of nucleons and electrons (for example there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!; what is the physical meaning of electric charge?; why exists the magneto-mechanical anomaly?).

[Grand_Lunar]

In my opinion theory was matched to observational results.

You make it sound as if psuedoscientists came up with the theory.
What if, then, the theory was brought up before observations were made. Remember, technology had to be altered before the new observations were made. I doubt that would have happened before the theory was made.

I claim that scientists do not understand the structure of nucleons and electrons

Not yet anyway, but they are learning. And as more knowledge become available, theories can be revised.
Just because some aspects of a theory do not match the observations, it doesn't nessesarily mean it is wrong; it could merely mean then that more knowledge is needed.

[north]

Sylwester

perhaps you have answered this question; how does your theory supply the electromotive force in an atom??

as well blackholes are also thought to be in the center of all galaxies and not just the result of a neutron star. so is there blackholes in the center of galaxies( at this point i say no)?

by the way i also would like to read your book!!

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Dear GRAND LUNAR,

These problems are more complicated.
We can call the thinker a scientist which starts from wordy description of physical situation and next on the base of that description constructs mathematical part and at the end interprets received data and that, as a general rule, gives an extension of the first wordy description. A magician starts from mathematical equations.
If theory arises before an experimental or observational fact and this fact is consistent with the theory then we have clear situation, but if it is inversely then there sometimes is a temptation to try to match theory to the experimental or observational facts. In this case we must closely test the theory.
I think that you know history of science.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Sylwester

perhaps you have answered this question; how does your theory supply the electromotive force in an atom??

as well blackholes are also thought to be in the center of all galaxies and not just the result of a neutron star. so is there blackholes in the center of galaxies( at this point i say no)?

by the way i also would like to read your book!!

NORTH, I tried to send you e-copy of my book but your email is blocked.

Your question connected with the electromotive force is very interesting but sorry, my interests are: cosmology, particle physics and QED.

I think that in the centers of the massive galaxies there are the neutron stars but these regions are hard to observe.

[north]

NORTH, I tried to send you e-copy of my book but your email is blocked.

yes it would be,security. and at this point i don't know how to disconnect it. is there no other way i could down load your theory?

Your question connected with the electromotive force is very interesting but sorry, my interests are: cosmology, particle physics and QED.

fair enough

but even in QED one must have an electromotive force otherwise there is no QED. the electromotive force is the essence of QED.

I think that in the centers of the massive galaxies there are the neutron stars but these regions are hard to observe.

it would be interesting to your physics as to the ability of the neutron star to be at the center of a galaxy. since this would imply that the neutron star draws in matter towards its self, through rotation(and not gravity). however from a three dimensional point of view this would not be possible, since rotation has two aspects of its self. one at 180degrees and the other at 360degrees. and both cancel each other.

this to me is where the begining of our understanding and imagination of a galaxy should begin with. the understanding of what the spiral arms of a galaxy are really telling us.

[Nereid]

[snip]

The mainstream theories of neutrino oscillation are consistent with good observational results [...] In my opinion theory was matched to observational results.

[snip]

Thank you Sylwester.

[snip]
the QED gives good results

This is not a particle physics/high-energy physics/quantum theory discussion forum (though we do have considerable interest in these fields), so my question is of only tangential relevance: can you, with your idea, make predictions that have the (11 decimal place?) accuracy and match to good observational results, that QED has on its CV?

[Nereid]

Nereid, why I must once again answer to the same questions?

Because, as far as I understand your responses, you did not, in fact, answer these questions the first (or second, or ...) time.

1) How much of this 'DM' (in the SK idea) is there in our solar system?

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. These big stars at first were created on the surface of largest structures (i.e. the megachains) of our young World built of protogalaxies which were grouped in larger structures (see #1, thread ‘Very massive black hole in Sagittarius’), next, when the density of our young World was lower, on the surface of the smaller structure (i.e. the superclusters) and so on to the more and more structures. Last of all there were the single typical black holes (the Oort’s belt it is some part of the DM created by a typical black holes. From this it results that the DM we must seek in the halos of these structures. Mass of DM in these halos must be proportional to the surface of these structures and proportional to the number of created big stars. Rest it is the astrophysics.

This is a good example, at least to me, of a non-answer.

First, I asked you about DM in our solar system (you did not answer)

Second, this is an astronomy and space exploration forum (so we expect to be able to discuss things pertinent to our solar system, and to have posters be able to distinguish between this and the universe as a whole).

Third, this question relates to one of the (potentially) most testable predictions of your idea (wrt astronomy and space exploration); in principle, we are able to test any cosmological idea (which you claim yours most certainly is) via its solar system instantiations in more detail, and more accurately, than in any other regime.

Fourth, you chose to come here to present (and defend) your ideas; if you abstain from such defence, so be it (but please, at least have the honesty to state your inability/unwillingness to address matters of great interest to members and readers of this forum).

Finally, may I conclude from your comments that the mass of DM in our solar system is 4 times that of the observable mass (the Sun, the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust, IPM)? And that the vast bulk of this DM is in the Oort cloud?

2) Have you (Sylwester Kornowski) attempted to make even OOM estimates of the mass (size) distribution function of the Fe/Ni which you claim comprises (all?) the DM in the universe?

Such calculations are simple but it is astrophysics. See point 1. I have no time for such recreation.

And that's perfectly OK.

However, it also means that you have passed up an opportunity to show that your idea is consistent with good astronomical observations; it also means that the astrophysical basis for your claims will be weak (at best).

3) [SK:"Most of the Fe/Ni CDM must be in the halos of largest cosmic structures. I assume that it will be detected in future observations."] Is this equivalent to saying that you cannot account for the constraints on baryonic mass (specifically, Fe/Ni) as a component of MW halo or rich cluster DM? Specifically, that you cannot show a plausible mass distribution function that is consistent with the observed MACHO (and other lensing surveys) results? with the observed IGM and MW halo (lack of) absorption (and emission) lines? with the observed lack of IGM and MW halo dust reddening?

I am able calculate all what is connected with cosmology, particle physics, QED and also with astrophysics but finite time causes that I must concentrate on the most important problems. These most important problems are only partially connected with astrophysics
but in my opinion answers to your astrophysical questions number 2 and 3 we may in COSMOLOGY reduce to my answer given in point 1.

And that's perfectly OK too.

However, it considerably weakens your cosmology claims too, to the extent that such claims include/rely upon 'DM'; IOW, you cannot claim that any consistency between cosmological predictions (from your idea) and good observations, where your predictions incorporate your ideas about 'DM'.

4) How did the Fe/Ni get into the MW (and other galaxy) halo(s)? into the IGM of rich clusters? If it got there via some 'explosion' or other, by what physical mechanism(s) did it clump/come together to form macroscopic bodies?

The protogalaxies were built of the typical black holes. After the Big Bang these typical black holes intensively evaporated. I described this mechanism in thread ‘Professor Ketterle….’
When the mass of a black hole exceeds the mass of typical black holes then creates disc because the dropping on the typical black hole particles could attain velocities higher than the light velocity. The neutrons placed on the surface of the black hole, in respect of the weak decays, emit the electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of black hole. Owing to the electric repulsion between electrons and to the strong spin polarization of the antineutrinos and electrons in directions parallel to the magnetic axis of the typical black hole, these electrons are accelerated to the velocities almost equal to the light velocity. Due to these emissions the surface of the typical black hole is charged positively. The electric repulsion of protons causes that the protons gather first of all in surroundings of the equator of the typical black hole. At last the electric repulsion exceeds the gravitational attraction and there take place the proton explosions in the plane of the equator of typical black hole. The rapid slow-down of protons creates the electromagnetic radiation. The proton streams carry away some neutrons what causes the additional emissions of electrons and electron antineutrinos in directions perpendicular to the plane of disc. The electron-antineutrino stream have the form of very strong collimated jet. Similar phenomena but on a larger scale took place in surroundings of the quasars. The emitted protons capture the electrons and create the protonuclei, from which after their transformation into the nuclei and electron gas, arise the big stars. Just before the explosion of a big star the composition of the big star is as follows: 80% Fe+Ni, 20% H+He in proportion 74% H and 26% He.
Protogalaxies collected in the supertorus had not evaporated because the number of emitted by defined protogalaxy electrons and electron antineutrinos was equal to the number of absorbed electrons and electron antineutrinos. Before the Big Bang the axes of protogalaxies were tangential to the circle inside the Supertorus.

Thanks.

None of this seems to address my question on the mechanism of 'clumping' of the DM. I also note that none of what you write seems (to me) to afford any practical (astronomical) test (via instruments and telescopes we have at our disposal today).

5) [SK: "In my idea the all Fe/Ni CDM was created inside the big stars of first generation. The mass of it is 4 times greater than the mass of visible matter."] In rich clusters, the inferred amount of baryonic mass is ~15% (the vast majority of it as H and He); i.e. (non-baryonic) DM is ~7 times greater (by mass). This would seem to be inconsistent with the prediction from your idea. How do you account for this inconsistency?

See point 1. Inside the structures there is less the DM than in the halos. Examples are not far to seek. In the solar system most of the DM is in the Oort’s belt.

Thanks.

Unfortunately, as I'm sure you'll agree, there is nothing in what you write that can be tested, via astronomy (using today's telescopes and instruments), with the possible exception of the mass of the Oort cloud - what is this mass (in your idea)?

6) [SK: "our Sun has iron-nickel core (about 3% of the mass of the Sun). In old stars there are larger the iron-nickel cores (about 12%). In the big stars of first generation, just before the explosion of such star, the iron-nickel core had the mass equal to 80% of the mass of the big star."] Have you run standard stellar (or even solar) models with these high Fe/Ni abundances?

Yes.

Which standard models did you run? What were the input parameters?

The second and third generation of stars were created from gas clouds containing about 74% H and 26% He. Why in stars there is less helium than at the beginning? Only my theory gives answer to this question. Also you can see that for the external layer of the stars we have (APPROXIMATELY!!!!! because stars differ in mass):
Time-life 5 billion years – about 24% He
Time-life 10 billion years – about 22% He
Time-life 15 billion years – about 20% He
BUT AT THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 26% He.

References please! (preferably technical papers in publications such as ApJ, not popsci magazines such as Scientific American).

Can you see that with the evolutionary model of star is something wrong?

No, I can't; please explain.

We must assume that in the stars type the sun there are transformation of hydrogen into helium but also helium into iron.

Why? Why not into C, N, O?

My theory of internal structure of nucleons and electrons explains why in the temperature about 15 million K (pressure about 3 . 10^16 Pa) there take place transformation of helium into iron.

If that is so, then it would seem you have not used standard stellar/solar models/codes. Which standard codes did you use? and how did you modify them to include your ideas?

[north]

Sylwester

or anybody for that matter.

when a neutron star explodes it would not only show up in observations for us to see but also affect closer systems and even closer systems progressively to the neutron star. if there are no changes to the closer systems( a before and after thing) to the neutron star then what does this say about this this "so-called" neutron star explosion?? is it time to re-evaluate what this phenomena is?

[Nereid]

I feel it might be helpful to have a look at where we are, in our discussions of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas, here in the ATM section of BAUT.

This is his claim, compressed to a single, short sentence:

My ultimate theory gives correct answers to all fundamental questions connected with cosmology and particle physics.

There are now just three threads with active discussion of the 'ultimate theory':
-> Professor W.Ketterle discovered new state of matter (this thread, the main thread)
-> Sylwester Kornowski's cosmology ideas (was Before the Big Bang) (a merger of two threads)
-> What must the ultimate theory contain?

What quantitative cosmology predictions or claims has Sylwester made, based on his idea, that are consistent with good observational results (and which claims have survived the gleeful and fervid attacks by BAUT members)? Here's my working list:

+ Olber's paradox (why is the night sky dark?).

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
What about general astronomy? Here's my working list:

+ the Titius-Bode law.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
How does Sylwester's idea fare, when examined with respect to the 'four (observational) pillars' of the concordance model in cosmology? Here's my working list:

- CMBR: 2.73K blackbody open; dipole not answered; angular power spectrum not answered
- (Primordial) abundance of light nuclides: unable to progress; SK's idea requires Dark Matter to be a mixture of Fe and Ni, this makes the test either impossible to perform (this Fe/Ni mix is undetectable with today's technology) or open (SK cannot/will not answer questions about the expected mass/size distribution of this Fe/Ni mix, and can't/won't explain the null results of numerous DM searches)
- Hubble relationship: one key prediction (H=46) may be untestable; otherwise, fruitful discussions are ongoing
- large-scale structure: unable to progress; SK is unwilling or unable to provide quantitative predictions.

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
How about SK's own list of key cosmological questions? Here's my working list:

(-) We have just begun a discussion of five of these (this post includes the CMBR temperature question) open

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Anything else? Yes; Sylwester has made specific, testable, quantitative predictions about the speed of gravity (a huge multiple of c) and gravitational radiation/waves (they don't exist, so LIGO, LISA, and other such will all have null results). Also, although not within the remit of this ATM section, SK seems to have claimed that entangled particles can be used to carry information, essentially instanteously (i.e. that experimental tests of the Bell Inequality/EPR paradox show such communication is possible; I note that this may be a misunderstanding by me, and that SK does not, in fact, make such claims).

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
Comments on the accuracy and completeness of this summary are most welcome (please be sure to limit such to quantitative, testable predictions from SK's idea, preferrably related to cosmology only).

[Sylwester Kornowski]

yes it would be,security. and at this point i don't know how to disconnect it. is there no other way i could down load your theory?

via www, see #1, it is free e-copy.

fair enough
but even in QED one must have an electromotive force otherwise there is no QED. the electromotive force is the essence of QED.

In which book describing the quantum electrodynamics?

The essence of QED it is structure of electrons and interactions between electrons, photons and electron-positron pairs.
There are following problems:
-magnetic moment of electron
-magnetic moment of muon
-the spin flip of the electron in hydrogen atom
-Lamb-Retherford shift

it would be interesting to your physics as to the ability of the neutron star to be at the center of a galaxy. since this would imply that the neutron star draws in matter towards its self, through rotation(and not gravity). however from a three dimensional point of view this would not be possible, since rotation has two aspects of its self. one at 180degrees and the other at 360degrees. and both cancel each other.

this to me is where the beginning of our understanding and imagination of a galaxy should begin with. the understanding of what the spiral arms of a galaxy are really telling us.

In my model, when the density is enough low, the typical black holes (i.e. the largest neutron stars) intensively evaporate. Today in the dwarf galaxies there do not exist the typical black holes.

[Grand_Lunar]

We must assume that in the stars type the sun there are transformation of hydrogen into helium but also helium into iron.

If this was true, then instead of white dwarves, wouldn't we instead have neutron stars?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

If this was true, then instead of white dwarves, wouldn't we instead have neutron stars?

Your remark is very good!!!
Answer to your question is connected with my future patent. I give only fragmentary answer. The transformations of protons into neutrons in such stars as the sun depends of pressure, not temperature (why? – it is claim in patent). Of course temperature depends of pressure and vice versa but the physical meaning of such transformations is connected with pressure. There are possible such transformations connected with temperature but temperature must be higher than 15 million K, also much higher than 200 million K (such temperature will be in ITER) because the number of transformations must be greatest. To transform such stars into neutron stars we must transform all protons into neutrons but there is needed sufficiently high pressure. In our sun there is not sufficient pressure. Remember that the typical black hole (i.e. the largest neutron star) has mass about 25 times greater than the mass of the sun.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

This is not a particle physics/high-energy physics/quantum theory discussion forum (though we do have considerable interest in these fields), so my question is of only tangential relevance: can you, with your idea, make predictions that have the (11 decimal place?) accuracy and match to good observational results, that QED has on its CV?

As I said before the essence of QED it is structure of electrons and interactions between electrons, photons and electron-positron pairs.
There are following problems:
-magnetic moment of electron (in my theory 1.0011596528+-0.0000000011)
-magnetic moment of muon (in my theory 1.00116593)
-the spin flip of the electron in hydrogen atom (in my theory 1420.4 MHz)
-Lamb-Retherford shift (in my theory 1057.91 MHz)

Comparison of my QED and Feynman QED :
My QED it is about 10 pages; the Feynman QED it is about 1000 pages
My QED takes into account the weak interactions of electron, the dark energy because we are talking about electrons, and the fluctuations of the photon-neutrino background; the Feynman QED does not take into account these very important phenomena.
Both theories are consistent with experimental data. Why?
BECAUSE THE FEYNMAN QED HAS INTERNAL MECHANISM WHICH MATCHES THE THEORETICAL VALUES TO THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS.

Nature is not such complicated as the Feynman QED.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Nereid, I do not agree with your Status Check.

All quoted posts are in thread 'SK cosmological ideas'
Olber's paradox: answered, #1, #120, #140

The Titius-Bode law: answered, #35, #103

CMBR: 2.73K blackbody: answered, #132; dipole: not answered; angular power spectrum: not answered; amplitude: answered, #107

(Primordial) abundance of light nuclides: not important in my theory - not answered; but abundance of H, He and Fe+Ni: answered

SK's idea requires Dark Matter to be a mixture of Fe and Ni, this makes the test either impossible to perform (this Fe/Ni mix is undetectable with today's technology) or open (SK cannot/will not answer questions about the expected mass/size distribution of this Fe/Ni mix, and can't/won't explain the null results of numerous DM searches)

So why my theoretical results are consistent with the observational data?
From my theory it results that inside the baryon matter horizon, after the era of the big stars, there was:
about 6% of visible matter
about 24% of dark matter
about 70% of dark energy

Hubble relationship: one key prediction (H=46); may be untestable; otherwise, fruitful discussions are ongoing

Testable because I can calculate number of photons in cubic meter.

Large-scale structure: answered, #35

Anything else? Yes; Sylwester has made specific, testable, quantitative predictions about the speed of gravity (a huge multiple of c) and gravitational radiation/waves (they don't exist, so LIGO, LISA, and other such will all have null results). Also, although not within the remit of this ATM section, SK seems to have claimed that entangled particles can be used to carry information, essentially instanteously (i.e. that experimental tests of the Bell Inequality/EPR paradox show such communication is possible; I note that this may be a misunderstanding by me, and that SK does not, in fact, make such claims).

Sentence that 'entangled particles can be used to carry information' is untrue.

There are other important results obtained within my theory:
-The ratio of the real energy to the observed energy in background: 0.6 . 10^119, #19
-The minimal time of pulsation of a neutron star: 0.77 ms
-The radii of orbits of Planets, #35
-diameter of typical massive spiral galaxy and diameters of globular clusters (TODAY), #35
-density of the neutrino background
-density of our World
-omega=0.17 (density of our World to the critical density)

And a few hundreds results connected with the particle physics. Particle physics is strongly connected with cosmology. Physics of small and large structures in cosmos must be DUAL. Is there such theory besides mine?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Finally, may I conclude from your comments that the mass of DM in our solar system is 4 times that of the observable mass (the Sun, the planets, moons, asteroids, comets, dust, IPM)? And that the vast bulk of this DM is in the Oort cloud?

Of course not because on the beginning in centre of the solar system there was the typical black hole. It intensively evaporated and from the gas were created the big stars because the typical black hole had mass 25 times greater than the mass of the sun. Each of these big stars in explosions produced the dark matter. Only small part of this dark matter is in the Oort’s belt. Next from the gas produced in the explosion of the big star (74%H and 26%He), which was in the centre of the solar system, was created the supernova. After about 15 billion years this star exploded. There was produced the Kuiper’s belt. In our region of Galaxy the density of matter was not high so there was not many explosions of the supernovae so the average composition of the gas clouds was almost the same as just after the era of big stars (about 74%H and 26%He). From such gas cloud was created the sun.

Once more: the dark matter was produced in cores of the big stars. Just before the explosion of a big star in the centre there was 80% of Fe+Ni, exterior layer had composition 74%H and 26%He.

Which standard models did you run? What were the input parameters?

My own. Input parameters: 74%H and 26%He plus assumption that the density of released binding energy for the dominant types of the nuclear transformations has the same value.

From the four-neutrino supersymmetry described in #35, thread ‘SK cosmology ideas’ it results that nucleons most of all create nuclei containing 1, 4, 16, 64, 256 nucleons. Photons in the most dense part of the core of star also create groups containing 4, 16, 64 photons. At the beginning there are transformations of H into He so each photon has energy about 7MeV. Group containing 4 photons has energy 28MeV – it is binding energy of He(4), group containing 16 photons has energy 112MeV – it is approximately result of subtraction the binding energy of Fe or Ni and the binding energy of 14 nuclei of He(4), group containing 64 photons has energy 448MeV and is useless. THE STIMULATED EMISSION caused by the groups of photons causes that the dominant types of the nuclear transformations in the stars are as follows:
H into He
He into Fe or Ni
But there can be small amount of O(16 nucleons), and because of probability there is very small amount of nuclei which have about 16 nucleons i.e. N and C.

The main channels lead to
Time-life 5 billion years – about 24% He in exterior layer and 3% Fe in the core.
And so on as below.

Quote:
The second and third generation of stars were created from gas clouds containing about 74% H and 26% He. Why in stars there is less helium than at the beginning? Only my theory gives answer to this question. Also you can see that for the external layer of the stars we have (APPROXIMATELY!!!!! because stars differ in mass):
Time-life 5 billion years – about 24% He
Time-life 10 billion years – about 22% He
Time-life 15 billion years – about 20% He
BUT AT THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 26% He.

References please! (preferably technical papers in publications such as ApJ, not popsci magazines such as Scientific American).

O.K. Reference: Sylwester Kornowski because it is my theory.

No, I can't; please explain.

See above.

Why? Why not into C, N, O?

See above.

If that is so, then it would seem you have not used standard stellar/solar models/codes. Which standard codes did you use? and how did you modify them to include your ideas?

I used my own because the others are comic.
The stimulated emission. It is key to understand the evolution of stars.
My theory it is gaser-star!

[Fortis]

Comparison of my QED and Feynman QED :
My QED it is about 10 pages; the Feynman QED it is about 1000 pages

You can find good texts on QED that are substantially shorter than that. Also ones that describe the electroweak theory.

My QED takes into account the weak interactions of electron, the dark energy because we are talking about electrons, and the fluctuations of the photon-neutrino background; the Feynman QED does not take into account these very important phenomena.

QED implicitly accounts for photon fluctuations. As for neutrino interactions, they form part of the greater theory called electroweak.

Both theories are consistent with experimental data. Why?
BECAUSE THE FEYNMAN QED HAS INTERNAL MECHANISM WHICH MATCHES THE THEORETICAL VALUES TO THE EXPERIMENTAL FACTS.

Any evidence for that?

Nature is not such complicated as the Feynman QED.

QED isn't really that complicated, in principle. It provides a beautiful framework to calculate things that we can measure.