New Cosmology (discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Nereid, now the answers to other your questions.

In the case of your ideas re DM (namely that it is an Fe/Ni mix), there are dozens (if not hundreds) of good observational (null) results - no baryonic DM (in any form, not just Fe/Ni). If you would like to defend your idea, and explain how there can be the mass of Fe/Ni "DM" that you claim (from your idea) in rich clusters (for example), then please do so. However, if you are unwilling or unable to provide such an explanation, how should we record the correspondence between your idea and good observational results (wrt this test)?

Also TODAY it is very difficult to observe comets in the Oort’s cloud. In my opinion it is very, very difficult to detect such objects in the halos of large cosmic structures. We are today able to detect dwarfs in halos but not meteors.
I feel sure about existence of the Fe+Ni dark matter. It will be observed in the foreseeable future. In halos of rich clusters there must be about 4 times more DM than the visible matter.

So, in your idea, can entangled particles carry information?

I said that the entangled particles can quickly communicate (v=8 . 10^88c) but it does not mean that we may with such speed carry information. In my opinion probably we never will be able to built emitter and detector of such particles. The same we may say about higgsons (v=2.4 . 10^59c).

Would it be fair to conclude that if your cosmological predictions are not consistent with good astronomical observational results, then your particle physics ideas must be called into question too?

Yes. But my COSMOLOGICAL predictions are consistent with good astronomical observational results. If they are not consistent then I predict that some ‘good astronomical observational results’ are wrong, for example the conclusion that our World accelerates expansion or the conclusion that whole redshift for most distant objects is connected with motion of these objects or the conclusion that our World is 13.4 billion years old.

(to be continued)

[Grand_Lunar]

But my COSMOLOGICAL predictions are consistent with good astronomical observational results. If they are not consistent then I predict that some ‘good astronomical observational results’ are wrong, for example the conclusion that our World accelerates expansion or the conclusion that whole redshift for most distant objects is connected with motion of these objects or the conclusion that our World is 13.4 billion years old.

Whenever you say "out World", I can't help but imagine you're speaking of the Earth. Of course, I know you mean "the universe".

Your phrase seems to suggest that you're saying "If observations don't agree with my theory, then the observations are wrong."
That sounds a bit egotistic. Suppose your theory is in error on certain points. Then, like all theories before it, you'll just have to revise it, as has been done with the nebular hypothesis and the Big Bang.
You mention that your GASER theory explains the neutrino problem in a simple way. How is it any simpler than the theory of neutrino oscillations, which has had good, consistent observations not only with the sun, but also nuclear power reactors. (see here: http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...all/index.html

THERE DO NOT EXIST THEORIES (BESIDES MINE) WHICH WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE ANSWERS TO PROBLEMS DESCRIBED IN POINTS:
2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 13, 16!!!!!!!

There's that shouting again.

I read those points of yours and got to thinking:
What about the Superstring Theory? That seems to come close to many of the points, such as the structure of the neutrino and electron, ect. The concept of superstrings seems akin to your idea of the eterion and the higgson. I'm also unclear why you think those two particles move faster than light in a vaccum. Theorectically then, they would run backwards in time. Did you consider that?

And just how could your theory detirmine the distances between "worlds"? That seems to fall in the relm of the concept of 'multiverses'.

Lastly, have you published any of your theory, aside from this website? Have your subjected them to sucrutiny by other scientists?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

First off, SHOUTING LIKE THIS isn't really the best of ways to get a point across. I've tried.
What is this Light Brightening you speak of? I have not read anything about detection of supernova that say a thing about it becoming brighter before the actual event.
The standard theory goes that a number of neutrinos produced during the final collapse of the iron core will be detected first, and then the actual explosion will be observed. And the theory works, having been confirmed by observations of the 1987 supernova in the LMC.
Also, during the explosion, temperatures greater than 100 billion kelvin are produced, and within the oxygen/silicon shells, large portions of radioactive nickel is formed, which decays to cobalt and into iron. The iron thence blasted into space forms the visual light.
My question is this: what supernova event has been observed that confirms your theory? And what is wrong with the observations I have just noted?

From supernova theory (not mine) resulted that the progenitor star of SN1987A should have been a red supergiant. But it was a blue supergiant i.e. the progenitor star was too hot.

Except that a white dwarf is not formed by an explosion, but when nuclear reactions cease and the core becomes degenerate.

The first part of your sentence is not true. Around white dwarfs we observe a planetary nebula i.e. matter blasted by red giants.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Whenever you say "out World", I can't help but imagine you're speaking of the Earth. Of course, I know you mean "the universe".

Your phrase seems to suggest that you're saying "If observations don't agree with my theory, then the observations are wrong."
That sounds a bit egotistic. Suppose your theory is in error on certain points. Then, like all theories before it, you'll just have to revise it, as has been done with the nebular hypothesis and the Big Bang.
You mention that your GASER theory explains the neutrino problem in a simple way. How is it any simpler than the theory of neutrino oscillations, which has had good, consistent observations not only with the sun, but also nuclear power reactors. (see here: http://nobelprize.org/physics/articl...all/index.html

My theory is homogeneous and coherent and contains all basic structures and all interactions. This theory ties small and large structures (see #119, point 3) and is dual for these small and large structures. There does not exist another such theory. This theory gives best results from among all existing theories connected with particle physics and cosmology.
I know what I say.
The theory of neutrino oscillations is incorrect. This theory explains only one problem. My theory explains all basic problems in one homogeneous description.
In my theory (I said it before) the Universe is defined as whole infinite space with all objects, the World it is the bulge-bubble in the background of Universe created in the collapse of the Superworld and in the Big Bang.

There's that shouting again.

And it will be in future because particle physics and cosmology contain many funny, amusing, co(s)mic, droll, humorous, ridiculous, nonsensical, absurd elements.

I read those points of yours and got to thinking:
What about the Superstring Theory? That seems to come close to many of the points, such as the structure of the neutrino and electron, ect. The concept of superstrings seems akin to your idea of the eterion and the higgson. I'm also unclear why you think those two particles move faster than light in a vaccum. Theorectically then, they would run backwards in time. Did you consider that?

Neutrino and electron they are not a superstring. It is very funny when I read that the electric charge and spin are connected with vibrations of the superstring.
In my theory the eterion and higgson we approximately may compare to the superstring but the higgson has size ten billions times smaller than the Planck length and has extreme internal energy so it cannot vibrate. The dimensions 10 and 26 also appear in my theory but are connected with the degrees of freedom of higson and neutrino.

The eterions and higgsons are moving with speed much higher than light in vacuum because there exists the wave function of electron which fills whole space. Because a wave function fills whole space and has in some moment strictly determined form so the distant elements of the wave function must very speedy communicate. This speed must be very high in comparison with ‘c’.

The Einstein theories describing motions of objects built of neutrinos i.e. objects which are moving with speeds equal to ‘c’ or lower. These theories end on the Planck length (about 10^-35). To describe internal structure and behaviour of neutrino, higgson and eterion we need new physics (my physics). There do not exist particles running backwards in time because all particles in our World can quickly communicate.

And just how could your theory detirmine the distances between "worlds"? That seems to fall in the relm of the concept of 'multiverses'.

It was calculated from assumption that the ratio of distance between neutrinos in the neutrino background (between the Superworlds) to the external radius of neutrino (external radius of the Superworld) must be the same because there exists the transition SUPERWORLD-----NEUTRINO.

Lastly, have you published any of your theory, aside from this website? Have your subjected them to sucrutiny by other scientists?

Yes. I said about it in other posts and threads.
On May 12, 2005 my last most extended version of book was registered in IJTP. Till today there is no decision (probably because my theory ‘upset’ many theories in force nowadays).
In April and May this year I sent e-copy of my book to about 1600 scientists.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Appendix to #119, point 3

PROOF
The surfaces of toruses of neutrinos, nucleons, superwolds and electrons they are the analogs to the Ketterle surface discovered in 2005.

Appendix to #120, point 10

PROOF
Between most distant objects there exist the monstrous quasars.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Nereid, a lot of your questions concern the solar system so I once more stress main points of the evolution of the solar system.

1.At the beginning our protogalaxy was built of typical black holes grouped in larger structures. After the Big Bang these typical black holes intensively evaporated (first on the surface of the protogalaxy) what caused separation of these larger structures. One of these structures was the binary system and each component had mass equal to 4^4 times greater than the mass of the typical black hole. In this time were created first the rings and next the oldest cores of planets. The radii of orbits satisfied the Titius-Bode law (I described this phenomenon in another post. Because of the four-neutrino supersymmetry the typical black holes created first of all chemical elements containing following numbers of nucleons: 1 (hydrogen), 4 (helium), 16 (oxygen), 64 (it was transformed into iron with impurity of nickel), 256 (it was transformed into uranium238 and next into lead). Because uranium is most heavy, probably the oldest cores of protoplanets were built of uranium. There were succeeding explosions. After each explosion the radii of orbits increased. The last explosion created the Oort's cloud. At end whole mass of central body was transformed into gas clouds from which were created big stars of first generation and next the stars of second generation (TODAY they are in large distances). Some day the binary system was separated.

2. About 15-20 billion years ago in the central part of the solar system was created star which 10-15 billions years ago exploded as supernova type Ia. From rejected matter were created exterior layers of Planets and the Kuiper belt.

3. About 5 billion years ago in the centre of the solar system was created the sun from cloud containing 74%H and 26%He.

If the matter in the objects which comprise it come from an explosion, how did that matter come to settle in orbits in the Oort cloud?

Because the exploding central body rotated and we know that the total angular momentum must be conserved. It means that the meteors must have the component of velocity tangent to the orbit not equal to zero. Radius of orbit of meteor depends of power of explosion.

(to be continued)

[Fortis]

From supernova theory (not mine) resulted that the progenitor star of SN1987A should have been a red supergiant. But it was a blue supergiant i.e. the progenitor star was too hot.

Have a look at this page.

[Fortis]

The Einstein theories describing motions of objects built of neutrinos i.e. objects which are moving with speeds equal to ‘c’ or lower. These theories end on the Planck length (about 10^-35). To describe internal structure and behaviour of neutrino, higgson and eterion we need new physics (my physics). There do not exist particles running backwards in time because all particles in our World can quickly communicate.

What do you understand by the concept of simultaneity in special relativity, along with the notion of timelike and spacelike intervals (or geodesics in GR)?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Have a look at this page.

'.....easily accomodated by theory...'. Splendidly because of 'easily'.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

What do you understand by the concept of simultaneity in special relativity, along with the notion of timelike and spacelike intervals (or geodesics in GR)?

The special relativity predicts existence of tachions i.e. particles moving with velocities much higher than 'c'. 'Simultaneously' means that the tangled particles can quickly communicate, for example electron and positron in an electron-positron pair, the distant points in the wave function, but also neutron in our World and tangled antineutron in antiworld. Tachions, eterions, higgsons it is new physics.

[Grand_Lunar]

The theory of neutrino oscillations is incorrect. This theory explains only one problem. My theory explains all basic problems in one homogeneous description.

The theory of neutrino oscillations WAS meant to solve ONE problem, not all others. Observations have agreed with the theory. So, you're saying that even though the observations agree with the calculated results, that it's still wrong? I have trouble understanding that reasoning.

And it will be in future because particle physics and cosmology contain many funny, amusing, co(s)mic, droll, humorous, ridiculous, nonsensical, absurd elements.

This is, of course, your opinion. Some could say the same about your theory.

Neutrino and electron they are not a superstring. It is very funny when I read that the electric charge and spin are connected with vibrations of the superstring.

To date, we cannot prove or dispove this statement. So, until we can, I suggest keeping an open mind on this issue.

The eterions and higgsons are moving with speed much higher than light in vacuum because there exists the wave function of electron which fills whole space. Because a wave function fills whole space and has in some moment strictly determined form so the distant elements of the wave function must very speedy communicate. This speed must be very high in comparison with ‘c’.

As theory goes, for something to move faster than 'C', it would have negative mass. Are you saying this is the case?
For something just to GET to 'C', it would have to have infinite energy, or zero mass. To exceed 'C', you'd have to have negative mass.
Care to elaborate?

There do not exist particles running backwards in time because all particles in our World can quickly communicate.

Explain "communicate".

It was calculated from assumption that the ratio of distance between neutrinos in the neutrino background (between the Superworlds) to the external radius of neutrino (external radius of the Superworld) must be the same because there exists the transition SUPERWORLD-----NEUTRINO.

Of course, you are assuming that outside our universe, the normal concepts of the three dimensions of space still apply.

The first part of your sentence is not true. Around white dwarfs we observe a planetary nebula i.e. matter blasted by red giants.

This is still not the same as an explosion.
The gases are blown off similarly to a fashion of that of solar wind. Due to the large size of the star, they can escape out into space.
(If I'm wrong about this, I'd like another poster besides S.K to provide the correct information.)

Oh yes, I have also found out that some white dwarves DO exhibit magnetic fields, up to 300 million times more powerful than the sun's.
Not ALL white dwarves share this phenomanon, however. May I ask if your theory can answer why ALL white dwarves do not have powerful magnetic fields?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

The theory of neutrino oscillations WAS meant to solve ONE problem, not all others. Observations have agreed with the theory. So, you're saying that even though the observations agree with the calculated results, that it's still wrong? I have trouble understanding that reasoning.

My theory also agrees with the observations but in contradiction to the theory of neutrino oscillations my theory which solves the solar neutrino problem it is part of the ultimate theory which solves also other problems within the same coherent theory.

Quote:
And it will be in future because particle physics and cosmology contain many funny, amusing, co(s)mic, droll, humorous, ridiculous, nonsensical, absurd elements.

This is, of course, your opinion. Some could say the same about your theory.

Of course can, but they must have arguments.
I have big arguments: there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma but there exists the Ketterle surface and there exists the Titius-Bode law and my results connected with particle physics are much, much better than the others.
Also my arguments connected with cosmology are big: the most distant objects are most dense. There was no time to create such dense objects just after the Big Bang so the evolution of our World had to take place in completely different way.

Quote:
Neutrino and electron they are not a superstring. It is very funny when I read that the electric charge and spin are connected with vibrations of the superstring.

To date, we cannot prove or dispove this statement. So, until we can, I suggest keeping an open mind on this issue.

I also suggest ‘keeping an open mind on this issue’. My theory explains physical meaning of terms such as electric charge, weak charge, lines of forces, spin, curvature of space-time and many others the superstring cannot.

Quote:
The eterions and higgsons are moving with speed much higher than light in vacuum because there exists the wave function of electron which fills whole space. Because a wave function fills whole space and has in some moment strictly determined form so the distant elements of the wave function must very speedy communicate. This speed must be very high in comparison with ‘c’.

As theory goes, for something to move faster than 'C', it would have negative mass. Are you saying this is the case?
For something just to GET to 'C', it would have to have infinite energy, or zero mass. To exceed 'C', you'd have to have negative mass.
Care to elaborate?

I claim that today the particle physics and theories of relativity are governed by mathematicians. It causes that today people cannot distinguish physics from mathematical nonsense.
As I said before the Einstein special theory of relativity (STR) is connected with bodies built of neutrinos. Such bodies also in my theory cannot move with speed higher than ‘c’. Each interpretation carried from STR for speed higher than ‘c’ leads to nonsense. There do not exist bodies with negative mass, there does not exist imaginary time and so on (it is only mathematics, not physics).
Of course there exist fluctuations in the neutrino background, also holes. We may assign to such hole ‘negative mass’.
For speeds higher than ‘c’ there must be applied new physics (my ultimate theory). This new physics is connected with internal structure of gravitational field, with mechanism which leads to the curvature of space-time, with interpretation of term ‘mass’, with the internal structure of neutrinos, with interactions of neutrinos which lead to visible distribution of galaxies, with spin of eterions, higgsons and neutrinos, with the weak charge of neutrinos and with many, many others.

Quote:
There do not exist particles running backwards in time because all particles in our World can quickly communicate.

Explain "communicate".

There exist the eterions and higgsons. All objects built of neutrinos create the eterion streams (it is connected with internal structure of neutrino so also with the surface of the torus inside neutrino, this surface it is analog to the Ketterle surface). Eterions in such streams are moving with velocity equal to 8 . 10^88c. It means that a particle immediately knows the states of all other particles in our World (not in whole Universe because the Universe is infinite).

Quote:
It was calculated from assumption that the ratio of distance between neutrinos in the neutrino background (between the Superworlds) to the external radius of neutrino (external radius of the Superworld) must be the same because there exists the transition SUPERWORLD-----NEUTRINO.

Of course, you are assuming that outside our universe, the normal concepts of the three dimensions of space still apply.

Yes, outside of our World there are obligatory the same physical laws because the eterions, which have not weight fills whole infinite Universe (I explained this problem in other thread).

Quote:
The first part of your sentence is not true. Around white dwarfs we observe a planetary nebula i.e. matter blasted by red giants.

This is still not the same as an explosion.
The gases are blown off similarly to a fashion of that of solar wind. Due to the large size of the star, they can escape out into space.
(If I'm wrong about this, I'd like another poster besides S.K to provide the correct information.)

Oh yes, I have also found out that some white dwarves DO exhibit magnetic fields, up to 300 million times more powerful than the sun's.
Not ALL white dwarves share this phenomanon, however. May I ask if your theory can answer why ALL white dwarves do not have powerful magnetic fields?

There are big explosions and small explosions. Each instant enlargement or rejection of some part or whole mass is connected with instant production of energy. Each white dwarfs was created in different physical conditions so they must have different physical properties, also must differ in power of created magnetic field (there are different amounts of iron, there were different temperatures during explosions, they have different masses and so on).

[Fortis]

The special relativity predicts existence of tachions i.e. particles moving with velocities much higher than 'c'. 'Simultaneously' means that the tangled particles can quickly communicate, for example electron and positron in an electron-positron pair, the distant points in the wave function, but also neutron in our World and tangled antineutron in antiworld. Tachions, eterions, higgsons it is new physics.

Simultaneity means that two spacetime events share the same time coordinate. In SR this is frame dependant (unless they refer to the same spacetime event), i.e. what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another.

A timelike interval between two spacetime events means that the time ordering is independent of the reference frame, i.e. event A always occurs after event B. For 2 events seperated by a spacelike interval, this isn't the case and there are frames which can reorder the time sequence.

If you can communicate at speeds in excess of c, then it is now possible to send a message over a spacelike interval. This clearly causes problems for causality as there now exist frames in which the message is received before it has been sent.

What does this mean for your theory?

[Grand_Lunar]

I agree with Fortis.

I do not understand why your theoretical particles that make up neutrinos and electrons would even HAVE to have velocities faster than 'C'. If they make up these particles, then wouldn't neutrinos and electrons also move faster than 'C'?

And again, we get the problem of effect occuring before the cause.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Quote:
[snip]
I used my own because the others are comic.

Please provide for us 10 (say) key differences between good observational results (astronomical, of course) and results from standard stellar models that are so wild as to warrant the moniker 'comic'.

Quote:
The stimulated emission. It is key to understand the evolution of stars.
My theory it is gaser-star!

From this I conclude that you will be happy to answer specific, quantitative, detailed questions about the correspondence between your idea and good astronomical observations! I look forward to it.

1.First most important difference (because is connected with the groundwork of all these theories) is that in contrary to other theories my theory describes mechanism of transformations of protons into neutrons. Theories which are unable describe this mechanism are not worthy of notice because it is basic transformation in nuclear reactions. Scientist write that it is inverse process to beta decay. O.K.
But they do not answers following questions:
-from where the protons take electrons and electron-antineutrinos?
-what temperature is needed the inverse beta decay could take place?
(or what pressure)
The answers to these questions are connected with the internal structure of nucleons and spaces but the QCD is unable answer these questions. My theory is able.

2.Why abundance of chemical elements has highest ‘peaks’ for following numbers of nucleons: 1, 4, 56 and also for oxygen(16) and lead? My GASER and the four-neutrino supersymmetry explain it.

3.Why in the explosions of supernova Ia most of produced nuclei contain 7d and 16d nucleons? (where d=1,2,4,8 for 7d; and d=1,2 for 16d). Because in spaces of very high energy densities is possible only decay on two identical elements. But what threshold temperature is needed to create Ni(56) in explosion? Why first is created Ni(56), not Co or Fe? Of course there can create nuclei as fusion of mentioned nuclei.

‘Your’ theories cannot answer these questions. Can you see that my question they are the fundamental questions connected with fusion? It is reason why I said co(s)mic.


Other your questions are strictly connected with astrophysics i.e. each cosmic body must be treated as distinct object because the initial conditions were different (age, mass, initial abundance of chemical elements, temperatures and densities of nearby objects).

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I agree with Fortis.

I do not understand why your theoretical particles that make up neutrinos and electrons would even HAVE to have velocities faster than 'C'. If they make up these particles, then wouldn't neutrinos and electrons also move faster than 'C'?

And again, we get the problem of effect occuring before the cause.

It is the same as in gas - particles of smaller mass must move with higher velocity because the temperature of gas is directly proportional to the average energy of particles. My background of the infinite Universe is filled with eterions, higgsons and neutrinos. Of course neutrinos must be built of particles smaller than neutrinos. As I said in other post, to explain the internal structure of gravitational field and the structure of weak charge of neutrino we need two particles smaller than neutrino so these two particles must move with speeds higher than 'c'. The Aspect's experiment and existence of the wave function of electron prove that such particles must exist.
In my theory all basic objects i.e. eterions, higgsons, neutrinos, nucleons, and superworlds have half-integral spin. Knowing that masses of these basic objects are directly proportional to surface of toruses (to square of radius) and knowing formula connecting radii of these object (see #119, point 3) we can calculate the velocities of these objects on the equators of the basic objects. For example neutrinos on the equator of the torus inside nucleon are moving with speed 'c' and it is linear speed of free neutrino.

Some sample of my calculations:
I said that our World was created inside the Supertorus in the same way as the large neutrino loop inside torus of nucleon. In my theory pion it is binary system of such large neutrino loops so the large neutrino loop has rest mass about 67.5 MeV. Because rest masses/energies of loops are also directly proportional to surface of toruses (to square of radius) then the baryonic mass of our World must be K^8 (see #119, point 3) times greater than rest mass/energy of the one large neutrino loop. Because the mass of neutron is 939.55 MeV then we may calculate the number of nucleons in our World
N=67.5 K^8/939.55=1.1 . 10^78 nucleons
This means that the baryonic mass of our World is equal to 1.83 . 10^51 kg. It is mass of visible and dark matter of our World. This mass I calculated in different way in #35, thread 'SK cosmology ideas' but results are the same.
You see that my theory is dual for small and large structures in cosmos.

[Grand_Lunar]

So, you are saying that the 'particles' move inside the neutrino faster than 'C'? And that they have negative mass, right, so that they CAN move faster than 'C', right?

This still has temporal problems; the effect before the cause. These particles would travel backwards in time realitive to the structures they make up. How do you solve this problem then?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Dear FORTIS,
Dear GRAND LUNAR,

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sylwester Kornowski
The special relativity predicts existence of tachions i.e. particles moving with velocities much higher than 'c'. 'Simultaneously' means that the tangled particles can quickly communicate, for example electron and positron in an electron-positron pair, the distant points in the wave function, but also neutron in our World and tangled antineutron in antiworld. Tachions, eterions, higgsons it is new physics.

Simultaneity means that two spacetime events share the same time coordinate. In SR this is frame dependant (unless they refer to the same spacetime event), i.e. what is simultaneous in one frame is not simultaneous in another.

A timelike interval between two spacetime events means that the time ordering is independent of the reference frame, i.e. event A always occurs after event B. For 2 events seperated by a spacelike interval, this isn't the case and there are frames which can reorder the time sequence.

If you can communicate at speeds in excess of c, then it is now possible to send a message over a spacelike interval. This clearly causes problems for causality as there now exist frames in which the message is received before it has been sent.

What does this mean for your theory?

So, you are saying that the 'particles' move inside the neutrino faster than 'C'? And that they have negative mass, right, so that they CAN move faster than 'C', right?

This still has temporal problems; the effect before the cause. These particles would travel backwards in time realitive to the structures they make up. How do you solve this problem then?

As I said there MUST exist particles moving with speeds higher than ‘c’ so we must look on nature in different way. Each particle in our World knows at once about each change in our World. It means that particles communicate very, very quickly (with speed 8 . 10^88c). It also means that if we send photon towards some object then this object knows that the photon is coming up before this photon reach this object (because of eterions) BUT ENERGY OF PHOTON (i.e. INFORMATION CARRIED BY PHOTON) can be detected by object when the photon reach destination.
To send an observation with speed higher than ‘c’ we should build emitter and detector of eterions or higgsons. I cannot imagine what such devices should be. The eterions, higgsons and neutrinos in the neutrino background do not rotate. Collisions between these particles cause that linear speeds increase and rotational energies decrease. Because the Universe is infinite then the rotational speeds of these particles in the background of Universe are equal to zero. It means that they are undetectable.

Recapitulation: probably only particles can communicate with speed higher than ‘c’ because their internal structure causes that they are able to detect eterions and higgsons.
There do not exist particles with negative mass. Negative mass we may attribute to a hole in the neutrino background.

[Grand_Lunar]

To send an observation with speed higher than ‘c’ we should build emitter and detector of eterions or higgsons.

Provided such particles even exist. The likelyhood is about as much as superstrings from M theory.
If they cannot be detected, then how would we know they even exist? Is there no indirect method of detection by your theory? I ask, for that is theorectically how we can detirmine if superstrings exist; by indirect evidence.

There do not exist particles with negative mass.

Then how would your proposed particles travel faster than 'C'?
If memory serves, a tachyon is theorized to have negative mass, which is how it theorectically travels faster than 'C'. Therefore, your particles ought to behave the same. If they had NO mass, then they'd travel at 'C'.

I still do not understand what you mean by particles 'communicating' with each other.

Back to the issue of distances between "worlds" (as you call them); you assume that our normal spatial dimensions exist outside the universe. Recall that they break down once we enter a singularity. What makes you think they're still intact outside the universe? And would you also assume that in other universes our same dimensions exist as they do in ours?

Another question: am I right in assuming that in earlier posts that what we dectect as dark matter, you say is large amounts of iron and nickel, correct?

[Fortis]

If memory serves, a tachyon is theorized to have negative mass, which is how it theorectically travels faster than 'C'. Therefore, your particles ought to behave the same. If they had NO mass, then they'd travel at 'C'.

Strictly speaking it is more exotic than that. It is the square of the rest mass that is negative for a tachyon, which means that the rest mass is imaginary...

[Sylwester Kornowski]

GRAND LUNAR, as I said in other post the theories of relativity must be extended. We cannot explain for example the internal structure of neutrino applying the SR or GR. It is as if you to try explain the phenomena resulting from the SR or GR applying the Newtonian gravity. So we may discus the new physics which describes structures smaller than the Planck length.

Quote:
To send an observation with speed higher than ‘c’ we should build emitter and detector of eterions or higgsons.

Provided such particles even exist. The likelyhood is about as much as superstrings from M theory.
If they cannot be detected, then how would we know they even exist? Is there no indirect method of detection by your theory? I ask, for that is theorectically how we can detirmine if superstrings exist; by indirect evidence.

There exist the indirect proofs that eterions and higgsons must exist:

1.The visible distribution of galaxies it is result of interactions of the weak charges of neutrinos (there does not exist other explanation). The neutrino may have the weak charge if is built of particles smaller than neutrino so these smaller particles must move with speed higher than neutrino i.e. higher than ‘c’.

2.We know that neutrino has mass (in my theory the mass of neutrino is 3.32 . 10^-67 kg). It means that neutrino creates gravitational field so the particles which built up the gravitational field also must have smaller size than neutrino. These particles also must have the mass much smaller than the neutrino because the gravitational field is created in whole space.

3.The wave function could not exist (the quantum mechanics could not exist) if there would not exist particles moving with speed higher than ‘c’.

4.Also the result obtained within my theory 0.6 . 10^119 (which is consistent with result obtained within the quantum mechanics) which is connected with transition SUPERWORLD----NEUTRINO suggests that neutrino must be built of particles moving with speeds much higher than ‘c’.

Comment: I said in other post that elementary photon it is binary system of two neutrinos of different weak charges so this elementary photon has very small rest mass (about 6.64 . 10^-67 kg). But the SR says that particle which has rest mass and is moving with speed ‘c’ has infinite relativistic mass so why the elementary photon has not such mass. Because such interpretation of SR is wrong. The formula for relativistic mass we may apply only in relation to object which we may accelerate. The speed ‘c’ of photon and neutrino it is natural speed of these particles in the neutrino background of the Universe.

Quote:
There do not exist particles with negative mass.

Then how would your proposed particles travel faster than 'C'?
If memory serves, a tachyon is theorized to have negative mass, which is how it theorectically travels faster than 'C'. Therefore, your particles ought to behave the same. If they had NO mass, then they'd travel at 'C'.

See above. Physics connected with eterions, higgsons and the internal structure of neutrino and with the internal structure of gravitational field it is new physics.
Eterions have mass (understanding as primordial substance without internal structure) but have not weight because there do not exist smaller particles than eterion which could curve the space.
Higgson has mass because is built of eterions and has weight because the viscosity of the higgson and eterions and the internal helicity of the higgson torus cause that the trajectories of the eterions going near the surface of the higgson torus are curved. The set of the curved trajectories of the eterions connected to this higgson I call the gravitational field of the higgson.
The internal structure of neutrinos I described in #42.

I still do not understand what you mean by particles 'communicating' with each other.

See above. ‘Communicating’ it means that each particles larger than eterion creates the gravitational field (also neutrinos and photons) which propagates with speed 8 . 10^88c.

Back to the issue of distances between "worlds" (as you call them); you assume that our normal spatial dimensions exist outside the universe. Recall that they break down once we enter a singularity. What makes you think they're still intact outside the universe? And would you also assume that in other universes our same dimensions exist as they do in ours?

I explained it in other post.
If we want to get the Universe as symmetric and stable as we observe then the density of energy in the more elementary spaces (we have five levels of such spaces) must be higher and the mathematical description simpler since a complicated description gives many ways of evolution and leads to a chaos in behaviour of matter. Then there is natural assumption that the mathematical and physical description of the fundamental space must be simplest i.e. we assume that there exists only one type of fundamental particle without the internal structure and that this particle has very high spin velocity and linear velocity. Such conditions had to lead to an ideal granulation of the fundamental space and had to make these granules look like the very flat rings. I call them the eterions of English word ‘eternity’. The rest must result from the spontaneous phenomena.
Next main assumption is that the nature has its internal defensive mechanism which prevents the creation of singularities of infinite mass density. Before such singularity is created there arise vortexes similar to tropical cyclones.

Recapitulation: in whole infinite Universe the eterions look the same and the physical state of them is described by 7 parameters. It is the groundwork of the ultimate theory which we may write on T-shirt as the ultimate theory. So because in the whole infinite Universe the initial conditions are the same so in the whole infinite Universe there is obligatory the same physics and mathematics.

Another question: am I right in assuming that in earlier posts that what we dectect as dark matter, you say is large amounts of iron and nickel, correct?

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. This DM is in form of meteors and dwarfs and most of this DM must be placed in the halos of largest structures in cosmos.

[Thanatos]

This is a joke, right Syl? You can't possibly be serious. Even a drowning man can't grasp that many straws. Shall we go through this assertion by assertion? I'd rather not, but, if you insist, I will find the time.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Sorry FORTIS, Sorry THANATOS you provoke me so I must defend myself in following way.

Strictly speaking it is more exotic than that. It is the square of the rest mass that is negative for a tachyon, which means that the rest mass is imaginary...

Can you see the transition in gravity?
Newton----Einstein----Kornowski (for example the speed of gravity 8 . 10^88c; or the internal structure of the gravitational field).

Can you see the transition in quantum mechanics?
Planck----Bohr----Schrodinger----Kornowski (for example the result 0.6 . 10^119 connected with the transition SUPERWORLD----NEUTRINO; or the New QED).

Can you see the transition in cosmology?
Doppler----Hubble----Einstein----Kornowski (the New Cosmology).

Can you see the transition in particle physics?
J.J.Thomson----Einstein----Rutherford--……..—Nambu, Nielsen, Susskind (it was good beginning of the superstring theory but almost all the rest is incorrect)----Kornowski (a few hundreds of best results).

Can you see the transition connected with neutrino?
Pauli----Wu----Reines, Cowan, Lederman, M.Schwartz, Steinberger----Kornowski (the internal structure of neutrinos).

Can you see the transition connected with the matter waves?
G.P.Thomson----de Broglie----Kornowski (the internal structure of the matter waves).

CAN YOU SEE THAT AT THE END OF THESE TRANSITIONS THERE MUST BE THE ULTIMATE THEORY?

There do not exist particles with negative (imaginary) mass.
There does not exist imaginary time.
There do not exist spaces with more number of the space dimensions than three.
‘Imaginary’ and additional dimensions it is domain of mathematics, not physics.
These terms introduced mathematicians which do not understand the physics.

This is a joke, right Syl? You can't possibly be serious. Even a drowning man can't grasp that many straws. Shall we go through this assertion by assertion? I'd rather not, but, if you insist, I will find the time.

Dear THANATOS, I think that you are joking.
Have you any arguments?
I challenge you, have you any big arguments that my theory is incorrect?
My first question to you is: what is the internal structure of neutrinos? What physical phenomena lead to the internal helicity of neutrino? (it is observational result- the Wu experiment)
But please, can you discuss the problems of the Universe, not my good points?
The Universe is more handsome.

[Wolverine]

This is a joke, right Syl? You can't possibly be serious. Even a drowning man can't grasp that many straws. Shall we go through this assertion by assertion? I'd rather not, but, if you insist, I will find the time.

Feel free to attack the ideas, but not the person.

[Fortis]

Sorry FORTIS, Sorry THANATOS you provoke me so I must defend myself in following way.

You still haven't addressed the question of how causality works in your model if you have superluminal particles.

[Grand_Lunar]

S.K, I see you left out Hawking in each of your lists. May I ask why?

So, your particles have mass. Therefore, they would need infinite energy to move AT 'C'. Once you hit 'C', you're not getting any faster, unless you have negative mass.
And, as Fortis pointed you, you STILL haven't answered the problem of causality.
From what I remember of tachyons, they're free roaming. The two other particles you mention, however, make up the insides of neutrinos. How are they moving faster than 'C' within the boundries of the structure of the neutrino?

You seem utterly convinced your theory is correct. However, M theory has about an equal chance of also being correct, and that answers pretty much the same questions as yours does (such as the internal structure of neutrinos).
And I say 'about equal' because, far I as remember, M theory doesn't involve superluminal speeds; thus no causality problems.
Unless you've addressed it, causality is the biggest problem with your theory.

I asked around about the plausibility of DM being iron and nickel. I'll show you a reply.

It's a process of elimination.

If the iron and nickel were in the form of stellar mass objects, that were cold (so we couldn't see them by the light they emitted), then they'd betray their presence by lensing background objects, as they passed in front of them (quite a number of studies of this kind have been done; there are caveat of course, but such 'condensed matter objects' do not exist in sufficient quantity to account for anything more than a tiny fraction of the observed DM in the Milky Way halo).

If the Fe/Ni were in the form of a gas, it would be stonkingly obvious, as a rich spectrum of absorption lines in the spectra of anything behind the Fe/Ni. No such lines are observed.

If it were in the form of 'dust', it would also be obvious - the same physics which brings you blue skies and red sunsets would bring you 'reddening' of background objects (we don't see such reddening).

So what does that leave? Well, it leaves beach-sand sized grains up to Jupiter-sized 'planets' (actually, more like Mars-sized ones).

From here the sleuthing gets more difficult.

One strand is 'what's the (size or mass) distribution function?' The basic idea is 'no woman is an island', in this case no chunk of DM is forever isolated from everything else. When solid bodies collide, they break into many pieces, some big, some small, some tiny. When liquid bodies collide ... The various kinds of non-isolation ('interaction') produce characteristic distributions of pieces (how many bits in the form of µ-sized 'dust' compared with bits in mm-sized 'grains' compared with bits in m-sized 'rocks' compared with chunks in k-sized 'mountains' compared with ...). So, working backwards, if you don't see any gas, or dust, or grains, or Jupiters, or star-sized lumps, how can there be anything much in the way of rocks and mountains?

Another strand is 'blow-torches are vicious!'. If you set off a powerful bomb (that makes lots and lots of light), then whatever Fe/Ni is nearby, in whatever form, it's gonna be painful - vapourisation, reflection, shock waves, ... all of which would be detected (light echos, glowing gas, etc); if you aim a trillion SLACs and LHCs out into space, then whatever is in the way will light up like with astonishing brilliance; etc. When we look near such celestial fireworks, do we see the agonised screams of Fe/Ni pebbles/rocks/boulders/mountains/etc as they are seared? No.

Finally, one that I particularly like is 'close encounters of the second kind' - our solar system is moving through the local part of the Milky Way (we're like a car on a multi-lane highway where everyone is going, more or less, at 100 km/hour, and we're doing 120; only for us it's more like 40 km/s). This means that whatever 'local' dust and grains there are will also be moving through the solar system. As such particles are too big to be bothered with the extremely tenuous IPM and ISM, and not charged (so they can ignore any stray magnetic fields), some of them will 'collide' with the atoms and molecules of the upper atmosphere, be slowed, and fall as a gentle rain onto the Earth, where they will accumulate in places where nothing else much accumulates. Or where the larger of them will get burned up, and be seen as (faint) meteorites.

By my interpretation of these statements, if DM was iron/nickel, we'd have detected it. As of yet, DM hasn't been detected except for its gravitational influence.

I've also been thinking about your GASER idea. And something didn't quite sit right.
Since you mention that in a GASER we have helium go straight to iron or nickel, I assume then all the required number of helium nucli combine at once, yes?
Now, having six or seven helium nuclie combine together would release quite a bit of energy, regardless of how they combine. This would be from the strong nuclear force; the binding energy for such a combination would release energy. And to make Fe/Ni in the amounts you theorize would add to the output of hydrogen fusion, yes? Surely if this was happening, then the sun would be hotter than it is right now.

As a side note, the detection process used on stars to solve the neutrino problem even worked for nuclear reactos on Earth (as mentioned in that article I linked to). So, we get the same observations for two different processes that both produce neutrinos. I doubt the GASER theory would apply inside a reactor to explain why we get different types of neutrinos.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

You still haven't addressed the question of how causality works in your model if you have superluminal particles.

It is not true. You probably do not understand what means words ‘to observe shape of particle’ and ‘to observe motion of particle’.
To observe a particle means that you have emitter of smaller particles than this observed, then you scattered these particles on the observed particle and next you observe the scattered smaller particles with the aid of detectors. For example we see the moon because our eyes they are the detectors of photons which are smaller than the moon, we can observe the interior of nucleon scattering the high energetic electrons because the matter waves connected with such electrons have length much smaller than diameter of nucleon, and so on.
What it means?
Because there do not exist smaller particles than eterions so the eterions never will be observed.
Because there do not exist emitter and detector of eterions then the higgsons cannot be observed directly. We can observe only the gravitational field created by higgson but such sensitive detectors do not exist today.
Today also do not exist emitters and detectors of higgsons (higgsons interact only gravitationally) so we cannot observe the internal structure of neutrinos because there do not exist such sensitive detectors.
The special relativity (SR) describes motions of particles which can be in the rest when are free. Such particles we can accelerate. When we accelerate such particle then it rotates with higher and higher angular velocity. It means that rotational energy of particle increases (internal structure of particle does not change). From the SR it results that when the linear speed is equal ‘c’ then the relativistic mass of such particle is infinite.
When we will have detectors of higgsons (detectors of weak gravitational fields) we be able to observe distant objects without time delay (can it be in future? – I do not know).

Recapitulation: the SR must be extended. Today we have not to our disposal sensitive detectors of weak gravitational fields so we cannot directly observe new effects.
But there exists the absolute time in our World.

[Grand_Lunar]

We're not questioning the motion of the particles or detecting them.

What Fortis and I are questioning is that moving faster than 'C' means that the particle in question moves backwards in time realitive to the surrounding enviroment. Therefore, the effects would happen before the cause.
How does your theory address this?

And I am also questioning exactly how something can move faster than 'C' without having negative mass.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

S.K, I see you left out Hawking in each of your lists. May I ask why?

Of course Stephen Hawking also must be in lists, also other great mathematicians and physicists.
I tried to stress the main stream of evolution.

(to be continued)

[Sylwester Kornowski]

We're not questioning the motion of the particles or detecting them.

What Fortis and I are questioning is that moving faster than 'C' means that the particle in question moves backwards in time realitive to the surrounding enviroment. Therefore, the effects would happen before the cause.
How does your theory address this?

And I am also questioning exactly how something can move faster than 'C' without having negative mass.

I say once more. It is wrong interpretation of SR. There is no problem with determinism. It is now 7:00 PM, I edit this post and because there exist the eterions whole our World knows that I edit this post at once. Therefore the effects could not happen before the cause. Whole our World knows about the cause at once. It is new physics. You cannot apply formulas containing ‘c’ to the particles moving faster than light in vacuum! If not then you will get wrong interpretations! The SR is in force for particles moving with speeds lower than ‘c’! Only it is physics! If you substitute to formula containing ‘c’ the speed ‘v’ higher than ‘c’ (i.e. v/c greater than 1) you will obtain the imaginary time, the imaginary mass, and that the effects could happen before the cause. But it is not physics, it is only useless mathematics.