New Cosmology (discussion of Sylwester Kornowski's ideas)

[Grand_Lunar]

"Whole our world"? What does that mean?

So, we cannot apply the speed of light (c) to particles moving faster than light?
Physics or not, the temperol problem still exists. And again, you are assuming your theory is true.

'M' theory does explain the same things your idea does, without resorting to superluminal velocities (perhaps even neutrino osscilations).

And what is your response to my question on the appearent problem with the GASER theory?

Another question: you mentioned that the star for our solar system was produced by a supernova 15-20 billion years ago. That's older than current observations have given for the age of the universe itself (which is about 13.5 billion years, +/- 10% if I remember correctly). I feel your statement needs revising.

There do not exist spaces with more number of the space dimensions than three.

That's quite an assumption. Others universes (worlds, as you call them) might.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

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?

The structure of torus of neutrino I described in #42. It is built of higgsons interacting gravitationally. In the detailed description there appears also the Bernoulli’s theorem. The surface of neutrino it is analog to the Ketterle surface. The torus rotates around axis going through the centre of torus and perpendicular to the equator of torus. The speed of higgsons placed on the equator is 2.4 . 10^59c. The neutrino may be detected when the axis rotates.

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.

From my theory results that the M theory has no chance. This theory never will be giving good results. The superstring theory is based on wrong initial conditions. It is big abuse when you say that the M theory ‘pretty much the same questions’ as my theory. It is obviously untrue. And the theoretical results……
My theory also has no problem with causality. I explained it in #150.

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

None the less I claim that DM it is Fe+Ni. I say once again that detection of the meteors in the Oort’s cloud is very difficult (30,000AU – 100,000AU). So to detect such meteors in halo of our galaxy is very, very, very difficult.
My theory very good estimates the ratio of the visible matter to the dark matter (also to the dark energy).
A propos: have you any other (not exotic) explanation for DM?

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.

Released energy is the same but is spread onto two nuclear transformations.

A future experiments give answer to question which one theory is correct.
It is obvious that in nuclear reactions appear also charged pions. Negatively charged pions decay into electron, electron-antineutrino, muon-neutrino and muon antineutrino. And it is answer to your question.

[Grand_Lunar]

It is big abuse when you say that the M theory ‘pretty much the same questions’ as my theory. It is obviously untrue.

Again, in your opinion it is.
How is M theory 'obviously untrue'?

None the less I claim that DM it is Fe+Ni. I say once again that detection of the meteors in the Oort’s cloud is very difficult (30,000AU – 100,000AU). So to detect such meteors in halo of our galaxy is very, very, very difficult.
My theory very good estimates the ratio of the visible matter to the dark matter (also to the dark energy).
A propos: have you any other (not exotic) explanation for DM?

If there WAS a halo of baryonic matter in the form of Fe+Ni, then would notice the reddening of incoming light in the same manner dust in our atmosphere reddens incoming light. Therefore, we would be able to detect it by such effects. Also, given the energies they would be subjected to (supernova explosions, gamma ray bursts), that we would also be able to detect them (just as Nereid said in the post I quoted).
Given that evidence, no I do not have a non-exotic form of matter for DM, because if there was one, we would've detected it.

Released energy is the same but is spread onto two nuclear transformations.

I don't understand this.

You mentioned your opinion of other theories in existence:

.... because particle physics and cosmology contain many funny, amusing, co(s)mic, droll, humorous, ridiculous, nonsensical, absurd elements.

The more I read of your theory, the more I am developing the same opinion of your theory.
The following are some of the reasons I formulated my opinion.
-Particles with superluminal velocities without having negative mass.
-GASER for the explaination for the neutrino problem (which was already solved, mind you)
-Fe+Ni as an explaination for DM
-Assumptions that our notions of spatial distances apply outside our universe.

[Nereid]

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

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.



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)

I've not yet seen the 'continued' (perhaps I missed it?). Anyway, here is the relevant part from '#35':

Cosmogony of the solar system
From the four-neutrino supersymmetry it results that a virtual pion in defined state of a neutron may consist of maximally 4^32 neutrinos. Since we have two states of neutrons then virtual pions in neutron can interact weakly (because of the long-distance interactions of the weak charges of the neutrinos) with maximally 2 . 4^32 other neutrons each placed in different typical black hole. Then our World on the beginning of the Big Bang contained 2 . 4^32 typical black holes. The next smaller structure it were the protogalaxies built of 2 . 4^16 the typical black holes with two cores (because of two states of neutron) each containing 4^16 typical black holes (for example M31 was created in such manner) or with one core containing 4^16 typical black holes (for example our Galaxy was created in such manner). The next smaller structure it were the globular protoclusters built of 2 . 4^8 the typical black holes with two cores (some of the globular clusters have oval shape) - such structure has mass about 3.3 million times greater than the Sun, or with one core (some of the globular clusters have spherical shape) - such structure has mass about 1.6 million times greater than the Sun. The next smaller structure it were protoclusters built of 2 . 4^4 the typical black holes with two cores and so on. Such protocluster I call the solar cluster. The cores of the solar cluster intensively evaporated and from this matter consisting of the chemical elements: H, He, O, X(64 nucleons) (it was transformed first of all into iron), Y(256 nucleons) (it was transformed first of all into uranium U(238) and next into lead) were created gas-rings which radii were defined by the Titius-Bode law. The rings were made first of all from uranium since the mass of nucleus of this chemical element is greatest. From my ultimate theory it results that A/B=1.3899 and if we assume that for the solar system A=0.41AU and B=0.295AU then we obtain better conformity with experimental data. If we assume that on the beginning of the evaporation of the solar cluster the elements of this binary system were in such distance that the centre of mass was placed in the half way from the Uranus-ring to the Neptune-ring then nowadays in the distance 28.73AU from the Sun must be placed planet i.e. Neptune (the Neptune-ring split on two rings tangential in one place). The half way from the Uranus-ring to the Neptune-ring met two waves with the same amplitude then in these places the density of matter emitted by constituents of binary system was minimal higher. Since the densities of the rings should be symmetrical then the density of the Neptune and Uranus should be higher than the densities of the Pluto and the Saturn. And it is truth (about two times higher). From the Dogon myth we know that our Sun and star called Po-tolo it was binary system. We know also that human life was created on the planet revolving Po-tolo. When the star Sirius ran across nearly Po-tolo then was created binary system of these two stars. Before the explosion of Po-tolo there was the Sirius-C which I identify with the planet Jupiter-twin.
Now I calculate the radii of orbits of planets.
From formula for angular momentum we know that if the masses of the rings do not change then evaporation of the solar cluster causes that the radii of rings increase inversely proportional to the mass of the binary constituent
m[ring]v[ring]r[ring]=const.
Since m[ring]=const. and v[ring]=(GM[constituent]/r[ring])^1/2
then M[constituent]r[ring]=const.
Since on the beginning M[constituent-beginning]=4^4 . 4.94 . 10^31 kg=1.2646 . 10^34 kg
and now M[constituent-now]=M[sun]=1.99 . 10^30 kg
then the radii of the rings increased M[constituent-beginning]/M[sun]=6355 times
On the beginning the radius of the Earth-ring was equal to
r[Earth-ring-beginning]=A[constituent-beginning]+2B[constituent-beginning]
where A[constituent-beginning]=GM[constituent-beginning]/c^2
and A[constituent-beginning]/B[constituent-beginning]=1.3899
then r[Earth-ring-beginning]=2.2897 . 10^7 m.
The nowadays radius of the orbit of the Earth should be
r[Earth-ring-now]=r[Earth-ring-beginning]M[constituent-beginning]/M[sun]=1.46 . 1011 m.
This result very well corresponds with experimental data 1.47 . 10^11  1.52 . 10^11 m.
IT IS NOT AN END OF THE COSMOGONY OF THE SOLAR SYSTEM!

And '#103':

And the meteorites we have, from these asteroids, have ages consistent with the (mainstream) theories that the solar system was formed some 4.5 billion years ago. In particular, none of these meteorites, which originate at k=8, have ages of ~15 billion years. As you stated that, in your idea, ALL the Titius-Bode objects formed ~15 billion years ago, this seems to be (another) strong inconsistency with (good) observational results.

It is not true. As I said the exterior layers of the Planets in the solar system were formed about 5 billion years ago. Do you know what is in the cores of the biggest Planetoids? (probability says that the most dense region of Planet(d=8) was not destroyed).

My challenges in the next post.

[Nereid]

Here are SK's specific predictions (only those for which there are good observational results that we can use to test them; observational values taken from here):

the density of the Neptune and Uranus should be higher than the densities of the Pluto and the Saturn
Saturn: 0.69 (g/cc)
Uranus: 1.32
Neptune: 1.64
Pluto: 2.06

radius of the orbit of the Earth 1.46 . 1011 m
1.496 x 10¹¹ m (semimajor axis between centres)

... and that's it.

Perhaps, Sylwester, you could provide us with your estimates of the 'radius of the orbit' of all the planets (not just the Earth)?

Also, what, specifically, does you idea predict about the densities of Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto ('higher than' is rather too vague)?

[Fortis]

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.

If there is such a thing as absolute time then SR is wrong. How do you fix SR in such a way as to give the same results as we observe whenever we test the predictions of SR? Presumably you have a replacement theory?

[Nereid]

It seems that most of these questions, from post #117 in this thread, remain unanswered, so I'm asking SK, again, to answer them (I've added numbers and some qualifiers to some of the questions; I've also [snipped] those which it seems may already have been answered).

[S1] What then, in your idea, is the mass of the Oort cloud?
[S2] Its composition? [specifically, in terms of the proportion of Fe/Ni 'DM' vs everything else; among the 'everything else', the proportion of H, He, C/N/O, everything else]
[S3] The orbits of the bodies which comprise it? [specifically, in terms of km or au, eccentricity, inclination]
[snip]
[S4] Are you saying that the objects which comprise the Kuiper belt are ~15 billion years old?
[S5] That they are composed of ~74% H, ~26% He?
[S6] How did the matter ejected in the explosion coalesce? Why did it coalesce in approximately circular orbits at ~Kuiper belt distances from the Sun?
[S7] What is the density of DM (your definition) in 'our region of [the Milky Way]?
[S8] How does your prediction of this DM density compare with the many good astronomical observations of such density?
[S9] Where have you published these models [of stars/stellar evolution]?
[S10] The results from these models?
[S11] How well do these results correspond to the vast number of good astronomical observations (e.g. HR diagram, zone of instability)?
[S12] To what extent do isochrones, in your models, correspond to those from standard stellar models?
[S13] How did you incorporate transitions from convective to radiative transport?
[S14] What values of opacity did you use for the various atomic (and molecular) species?
[S15] How do white dwarfs differ, in your models, from those in standard stellar models?
[S16] Neutron stars?
[S17] Core collapse SN?
[S18] Type 1a SN?

[snip]

As 'age' is obviously a critical parameter in (observational) cosmology, can you please share with us the key differences between application of your ideas to the ages of stars (inferred from isochrones, metalicities, luminosity, etc) and those of standard stellar models?
[snip]

[Nereid]

Let's do a check on Sylwester's claims (from post #119 in this thread; only those with specific predictions testable in the astronomical regime noted):

Nereid, to set our discussion in order I mention the basic elements in my New Cosmology.

1. [snip]
2. [snip]
PROOF
So first I claim that there do not exist gravitons and gravitational waves. Till to-day I am right.

First, there are - AFAIK - no claims concerning the (detectable) properties of 'gravitons', so this claim is a strawman.

Second, there are - AFAIK - no claims concerning the non-detectability of gravitational radiation ('waves') within the regimes where they are expected to be detected.

3. [snip]
4. [snip]
PROOF
It means that our World must be flat. And it is consistent with observational facts.

Yes.

5. [snip]
PROOF
It means that the ratio of the real energy of the vacuum to the energy of the vacuum which we observe is 0.6 . 10^119 because it is ratio of the internal energy of the neutrino to the observable mass of neutrino. It is consistent with result obtained within the quantum theory.

Please provide a reference (in a peer-reviewed journal) that gives this 'consistency'.

I note that this 'consistency' that you claim is between one theory ('quantum theory') and your idea - as stated, not between a prediction of your idea and what is observed.

6. [snip]
PROOF
The proof is indirect. Inside the horizon of baryonic matter these results leads to following results just after the era of big stars:
6% of the visible matter (74%H and 26%He)
24% of the dark matter (Fe+Ni meteors, most in the halos of largest structures)
70% of the dark energy (neutrino bulge-bubble)
They are consistent with observational results (respectively 5%, 25%, 70%) because some of stars of the second generation were exploded then there is little less of the visible baryon matter and little more of the dark baryon matter.

We already have an extensive discussion on this.

First, SK's definitions are different from those used in astrophysics, so one must be very careful about making comparisons.

Second, despite being asked several times, SK has not provided any quantitative answers to questions about how these claims about Fe/Ni are consistent with the numerous null results from multiple, indepedent searches for baryonic DM.

7. [snip]
PROOF [snip]

No quantitive statement about what's observable provided (read between the lines, and it seems SK is claiming the night sky will be dark).

[Nereid]

continued, from post #120 (my added numbering)

8. [snip]
PROOF
[8a] The asymmetry in the decays of the mesons B and anti-B suggests that matter and antimatter were separated before the Big Bang.
[8b] There exist 20 amino acids. 19 of them have the left internal helicity, one is neutral.

None of these is, strictly speaking, astrophysical.

8a (B meson decay asymmetry): not in the astrophysical regime
8a (Big Bang): this is not a prediction that is testable
8b: If this is a prediction of SK's idea, then it fails, badly (for example, from this Wikipedia article: "Over one hundred amino acids have been found in nature"; "Except for glycine, where R = H, amino acids occur in two possible optical isomers, called D and L. The L amino acids represent the vast majority of amino acids found in proteins. D amino acids are found in some proteins produced by exotic sea-dwelling organisms, such as cone snails. They are also abundant components of the cell walls of bacteria.")

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

We are still discussing this.

In the meantime, I note that '{X} is wrong, therefore my idea must be right' is hardly a compelling 'proof'.

10. [snip]
PROOF
For many most distant objects the redshift is greater than ‘1’.

Indeed, the Hubble relationship (distance vs redshift) seems to hold across a wide range of distances and redshifts.

However, I note that SK claims that H₀ is 46 (and 72); this item is still being actively discussed.

11. [snip]
PROOF
It is observational result.

The angular power spectrum of the CMBR is also under discussion. However, I note that SK has stated that he has not addressed the nature of the observed CMBR dipole, nor any specifics of the spectrum (other than its 'amplitude')

12. [snip]
PROOF
[12a] The 350 million/m^3 and [12b] the 2.735 K they are the observational results.

12a: hasn't yet been discussed
12b: yes.

[snip]
13. [snip]
PROOF
There do not exist neutron stars with period of pulsation shorter than 7.7 . 10^-4 s.

Reference (what is the fastest pulsar, observed to date)?

[13b] [snip] then the calculated radii of orbits of Planets are consistent with the observational facts.
[snip (globular clusters)] then almost whole mass must be inside spheres of diameters respectively equal to 158 light-years and 79 light-years (approximately).

13b: under discussion; SK has provided only one 'radius' so far.
13c: let's return to this.

14. [snip]
PROOF
GASER solves the solar neutrino problem in simple manner. GASER explains why in older stars there is less helium.

SK has been asked over a dozen questions about his ideas concerning stellar evolution, most of these remain unanswered. Until they are, we cannot conclude whether SK's idea matches good observational results or not.

15. [snip]
PROOF
[snip]

Not within the astronomical regime.

16. [snip]

Not within the astronomical regime.

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!!!!!!!

From the summary above, with reference to only matches with good observational results, which results are also problematic for current mainstream astrophysics/cosmology:
2: No (non-detection does not equate to 'problems'!)
4: No (a flat universe is a prediction from mainstream theories)
5: No (giving your idea high marks for matching a theory you claim is wrong??)
6: No (in fact, the observational data seem inconsistent with SK's idea)
7: No (Olbers' paradox is a prediction from mainstream theories)
8: No (SK's idea is inconsistent with chemistry that any high school kid can do; 8a is beyond scope)
9: Open
12: No (the 2.73K CMBR BB spectrum is a prediction from mainstream theories; 12a not yet discussed)
13: Open
16: Beyond scope.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

NEREID, you and GRAND LUNAR have irritated me so I will irritate you too.

The dark matter (DM) it is your flag topic. I claim that DM it is iron with impurity of nickel. There does not exist a non-exotic counter proposal.
Let us calculate the mean density of the DM in our Galaxy.
The mass of our Galaxy is ABOUT 4 . 10^41 kg.
So the mass of DM is 80% of 4 . 10^41 kg i.e. 3.2 . 10^41 kg.
Assume that diameter of our Galaxy is ABOUT 100,000 light-years and thickness is ABOUT 10,000 light-years. It means that volume of our Galaxy is ABOUT 6.7 . 10^61 m^3.
It means that the mean density of the DM in our Galaxy is ABOUT 4.8 . 10^-21 kg/m^3 (the real density is lower because the DM is distributed in larger volume i.e. in the halo).
Suppose that the mean mass of the Fe+Ni meteors is 100 kg. It means that there exists one such meteor in volume 2.1 . 10^22 m^3. If it is cube then the side of cube is 2.8 . 10^7 m i.e. 28,000 km.
Assume that the mean mass of the Fe+Ni meteors is 1000 kg. It means that one such meteor is in cube with the side equal to 59,000 km.
Assume that the mean mass of the Fe+Ni meteors is 10,000 kg. It means that one such meteor is in cube with the side equal to 128,000 km.

My question to you: Have astronomers telescope which is able to detect one cold (because it was created in the era of big stars just after the Big Bang) Fe+Ni meteor of mass 10,000 kg in cube with the side equal to 128,000 km placed in distance, for example, 1000 light-years, or 10,000 light-years, or 70,000 light-years, or in distant galaxy?
Of course not today!

SO IT IS END OF OUR DISCUSSION OF THE DARK MATTER.

I think that your aggressive attacks connected with the Fe+Ni dark matter have been repulsed.

Your other attacks connected with cosmology and particle physics also will be repulsed because I am right, not you.

(to be continued)

[Nereid]

From post #109 in this thread.

[snip]
- - - - Slywester, post #131 (extract - numbering added) - - - - -
[snip]
A. why the most distant objects, i.e. the big stars discovered by the A.Kashlinsky group, are placed close to each other? If the inflationary model is correct then distribution of the first objects should be ideal.
In my theory it is obvious because the big stars were created on the surfaces of the monster quasars and these superquasars existed before the Big Bang.
[snip]
- - - - - - Nereid, post #142 (extract) - - - - -
[snip]
A. {Please provide a reference to "the big stars discovered by the A.Kashlinsky group", so we may start from the same page}
[snip]

- - - - Slywester, post #146 (extract) - - - - -
Below I give answers to your questions connected with cosmology.

A. Nature, November 2005, Spitzer Cosmic Telescope
[snip]

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

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

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

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Yes, I confirm.

[Grand_Lunar]

NEREID, you and GRAND LUNAR have irritated me so I will irritate you too.

We are merely arguing your theory, not irritating you. So please, don't make it a personal vendeta to irritate us.

Okay, you made your point; you don't agree with exotic forms of matter, and say DM is Fe/Ni.

Your other attacks connected with cosmology and particle physics also will be repulsed because I am right, not you.

I must say, though, that given that you errored on your example of ammino acids, that I question your credibility.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I must say, though, that given that you errored on your example of ammino acids, that I question your credibility.

If this is a prediction of SK's idea, then it fails, badly (for example, from this Wikipedia article: "Over one hundred amino acids have been found in nature"; "Except for glycine, where R = H, amino acids occur in two possible optical isomers, called D and L. The L amino acids represent the vast majority of amino acids found in proteins. D amino acids are found in some proteins produced by exotic sea-dwelling organisms, such as cone snails. They are also abundant components of the cell walls of bacteria.")

In #1, thread 'SK cosmology ideas (was Before the Big Bang)’ I wrote as a decoration of my theory:
'A propos: our World built of the neutrons and protons (they have the left internal helicity) created life built of 20 amino acids, 19 of them have the left internal helicity and only one is neutral i.e. it has not an internal helicity. AMAZING?'
And it is true in relation to human body (partially to the origin of life), see book 'Right Hand, Left Hand: The Origin of Asymmetry in Brains, Bodies, Atoms, and Cultures' by Chris McManus.
Also lecture by Chris McManus on 27th April 2002 in The Institute for Cultural Research:
'......as neutrinos, and left-handed amino-acids of which we are made......'.

Of course you and Nereid are right that there also exist the R-amino acids but on the Earth live about 6 billion peoples. Can you concentrate on the main problems concerning cosmology and particle physics?

I am built of L-amino acids, and what about you?

[Fortis]

If there is such a thing as absolute time then SR is wrong. How do you fix SR in such a way as to give the same results as we observe whenever we test the predictions of SR? Presumably you have a replacement theory?

Sylwester, I just thought that I would remind you of this.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

"Whole our world"? What does that mean?

It means ‘each particle in our World’ (radius of the baryonic mass horizon, i.e. the radius of visible and dark matter, is about 13 billion light-years).

So, we cannot apply the speed of light (c) to particles moving faster than light?
Physics or not, the temperol problem still exists. And again, you are assuming your theory is true.

We cannot apply the speed ‘c’ to particles moving faster than light because they are moving faster than light.
The temporal problems exist only in your mainstream theories.

'M' theory does explain the same things your idea does, without resorting to superluminal velocities (perhaps even neutrino osscilations).

It is not true. Do you want to have a list of things which the ‘M’ theory does not explain?
I said about them many times.

And what is your response to my question on the appearent problem with the GASER theory?

In the nuclear reactions are created also the charged pions. As I said before the negatively charged pion decays into electron, electron-antineutrino, muon-neutrino and muon-antineutrino. The positively charged pion decays into positron, electron-neutrino, muon-antineutrino and muon-neutrino. So we have all neutrinos because from my theory results that the taon-neutrino does not exist. There do not exist oscillation of neutrinos because we may observe all neutrinos without oscillations.
If exist the neutrino oscillations so why we do not observe the taon neutrinos?

Another question: you mentioned that the star for our solar system was produced by a supernova 15-20 billion years ago. That's older than current observations have given for the age of the universe itself (which is about 13.5 billion years, +/- 10% if I remember correctly). I feel your statement needs revising.

It is not true, I did not say such nonsense (see #126 and #103).
The radius of baryonic matter horizon is about 13 billion light-years.
The radius of the dark energy horizon and the radius of the CMBR horizon is 21 billion light-years so our World is 21 billion years old (since the Big Bang because there is history of our World before the Big Bang – see #1, thread ‘SK cosmology ideas(was Before…..)’).

Quote:
There do not exist spaces with more number of the space dimensions than three.

That's quite an assumption. Others universes (worlds, as you call them) might.

It is not an assumption. It results from another assumption (I wrote about it before):
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. The physical state of eterions is described by seven parameters.

All other particles are built of eterions.
Eterions fill whole infinite Universe because eterions have not weight. It means that in whole infinite Universe is obligatory the same physics.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

If there is such a thing as absolute time then SR is wrong. How do you fix SR in such a way as to give the same results as we observe whenever we test the predictions of SR? Presumably you have a replacement theory?

Sylwester, I just thought that I would remind you of this.

Sorry Fortis! (too many other questions)
We test the predictions of SR applaing the objects built of neutrinos. To such observations we may apply the SR because these objects cannot move with speed higher than 'c'. Applying the SR to eterions and higgsons is forbidden.

[Grand_Lunar]

Do you want to have a list of things which the ‘M’ theory does not explain?
I said about them many times.

Yes, please provide the list. A concise one, if you please.

[Fortis]

Sorry Fortis! (too many other questions)
We test the predictions of SR applaing the objects built of neutrinos. To such observations we may apply the SR because these objects cannot move with speed higher than 'c'. Applying the SR to eterions and higgsons is forbidden.

What is your replacement for SR? I assume that you must have one.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Here are SK's specific predictions (only those for which there are good observational results that we can use to test them; observational values taken from here):

the density of the Neptune and Uranus should be higher than the densities of the Pluto and the Saturn
Saturn: 0.69 (g/cc)
Uranus: 1.32
Neptune: 1.64
Pluto: 2.06

You are right.
Density of the Pluto is 1.8 – 2.1
Density of the Charon is 1.2 -1.3
It means that Pluto and Charon were formed independently.
The prior observational result for Pluto was lower.
It means that my suggestion fits only to the big Planets and Charon.
Maybe it is some explanation but it has not to be true.

radius of the orbit of the Earth 1.46 . 1011 m
1.496 x 1011 m (semimajor axis between centres)

Difference is 2.4%. It is reproof? Incredible! There does not exists theory which is able with such great accuracy (it is astronomy!) calculate the orbit of the Earth from the initial conditions!

Perhaps, Sylwester, you could provide us with your estimates of the 'radius of the orbit' of all the planets (not just the Earth)?

I calculated radius of the Earth orbit. It means that the other orbits we can calculate very easy from the Titius-Bode law r=A+dB where d=0,1,2,4,8 (for Ceres),16,32,64,128. For Neptune we have d=96 because at the beginning there was binary system.
In my theory A=0.41 AU, B=0.295 AU because A/B must have the same value as inside the nucleons (the torus inside nucleon with the central mass is the black hole with respect of the strong interactions) because the first rings were created when in centre of the solar system was black hole built of the typical black holes).

Mercury THEORETICAL VALUE 0.40 AU (OBSERVATIONAL RESULT 0.387 AU) DIFFERENCE +2.8%
Venus 0.69 (0.723) -4.6%
Earth 0.98 (1.00) -2.4%
Mars 1.55 (1.524) +1.7%
Ceres 2.70 (2.77) -2.5 %
Jupiter 5.01 (5.203) -3.7%
Saturn 9.61 (9.539) +0.7%
Uranus 18.83 (19.18) -1.8%
Neptune 28.04 (30.06) -6.7%
Pluto 37.25 (39.52) -5.7%

The theoretical results (calculated from the initial conditions!) differ from the observational results from -6.7% to +2.8%. Because it is astronomy I may say that these results are very good. There does not exist theory which is able obtain such rigorous results from conditions from before about 15-20 billion years.

Also, what, specifically, does you idea predict about the densities of Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto ('higher than' is rather too vague)?

My theory only predicts that the ratio of the mass of first most dense core of Planet to the mass of Planet should be for Uranus and Neptune greater than for Saturn and Pluto (or Charon). But this symmetry existed when there was binary system. From my theory it results that the exterior layers of Planets were created when there was only one constituent of binary system. Probably it is the reason that the density of Pluto is greater.

[Grand_Lunar]

I've been checking on that GASER idea and realized a discrepency.

Now, you say that a number of helium nuclie combine to form iron and some nickel, correct?
With 26 protons in iron, we'd need 13 helium nucli. Assuming you speak of He-4, each also has two neutrons.
Combined, this makes for an atomic weight of 52.
Heres the point; iron's atomic weight is approx 56 (55.847 to be exact). So, I imagine this would make for a rather unstable form of iron, as I have never read of Fe-52.
A similar discrepency exisits for nickel in your theory; we require 14 heilum nucli in this case, so all together, we get an atomic weight of 56.
Nickel's atomic weight is 58.7 (so you're closer on this one).
It would seem then that your theory requires revising, such as stray neutrons floating around.
How would you account for these discrepencies?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

I've been checking on that GASER idea and realized a discrepency.

Now, you say that a number of helium nuclie combine to form iron and some nickel, correct?
With 26 protons in iron, we'd need 13 helium nucli. Assuming you speak of He-4, each also has two neutrons.
Combined, this makes for an atomic weight of 52.
Heres the point; iron's atomic weight is approx 56 (55.847 to be exact). So, I imagine this would make for a rather unstable form of iron, as I have never read of Fe-52.
A similar discrepency exisits for nickel in your theory; we require 14 heilum nucli in this case, so all together, we get an atomic weight of 56.
Nickel's atomic weight is 58.7 (so you're closer on this one).
It would seem then that your theory requires revising, such as stray neutrons floating around.
How would you account for these discrepencies?

There is not discrepancy because you start from wrong assumptions.
Assume that the energy in the centre of the sun is released only in transformations of neutrons (to combine protons in temperature about 15 million degree first they must be transformed into neutrons) into helium. For example in transformation of 112 of neutrons into 28 nuclei of helium is released energy equal to 784 MeV and are emitted 56 electron-antineutrinos.

Assume now that there is GASER. To release energy about 784 MeV there must appear 4 nuclei of iron as the result of combination of 56 nuclei of helium (about 400 MeV), and must appear 14 nuclei of helium as the result of combination of 56 neutrons (392 MeV). In these two transformation must be released almost the same energy. In first transformation are absorbed 8 electron-antineutrinos, in second are emitted 28 electron-antineutrinos, so in these two transformations is emitted 20 electron-antineutrinos.

Recapitulation: If there act GASER then is emitted about 3 times less the electron-antineutrinos and it solves the solar neutrino problem.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

What is your replacement for SR? I assume that you must have one.

We have to not replace the SR by my theory because the SR is correct for objects built of neutrinos. It means that we must built new physics for the eterions, higgsons and the internal structure of neutrinos. The groundwork of it I described in earlier posts.

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Yes, please provide the list. A concise one, if you please.

- structure of photon?
- physical meaning of the de Broglie waves?
- structure of electric charge?
- physical meaning of the wave function?
- structure of particles? (there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma)
- internal structure of elementary fields (also physical meaning of the lines of forces)?
- structure of the object before the Big Bang?
- what phenomena lead to the visible distribution of galaxies?
- why there is obligatory the magneto-mechanical anomaly?

and most important problems:
- structure of neutrinos?
- the exit of our World from state of black hole?

Again, in your opinion it is.
How is M theory 'obviously untrue'?

Because the 10 and 26 dimensions have not a physical meaning, it is only useless mathematics which leads into raspberry bush. Also M theory is not dual for particles and cosmology and is not able explain many basic problems (see above).

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Comment to posts #157, #158, #159

NEREID, you are author of the new theory of discussion based on following assumptions:

1.Reject the uncomfortable evidences connected with particle physics and cosmology which are not consistent with the mainstream theories (for example that many of distant objects has redshift greater than ‘1’, and that the big stars were grouped in larger structures because they are the proofs that just after the Big Bang there were the most dense objects).

2.Repeat the same questions claiming that they are not answered (for example the Olbers paradox).

3.If a mainstream theory something explains and the SK theory explains the same problem in different way then obvious the SK theory is incorrect (for example GASER, or the solar neutrino problem).

4.Ask questions of type: SN Ia? (what it means?).

5.If the SK theory explains some problem and the mainstream theories cannot then this problem is not important (for example connections between the small and large structures, and many others – very long list).

6.Ask questions to answer them there is needed computer of very high computational power (for example what is the detailed distribution of the DM in our Galaxy?).

If it is your politics to authors of new theories then my ‘congratulations’. Such politics practiced by scientists costs billions of dollars and euros. But it is nothing because USA and EU are made of money.


Can you take into account that my theory is homogenous and coherent for all problems, and that is dual for microcosm and macrocosm, and that is based on one assumption that there exist the eterions which physical state is described by only seven parameters?

[Fortis]

We have to not replace the SR by my theory because the SR is correct for objects built of neutrinos. It means that we must built new physics for the eterions, higgsons and the internal structure of neutrinos. The groundwork of it I described in earlier posts.

SR describes the structure of (flat) spacetime. It is not tied to any particular particle. It tells you how different spacetime events relate to one another in different inertial reference frames. I don't see how it is possible to treat one class of particles using SR and the other without using SR. Surely they both reside in the same spacetime?

Do you believe that all inertial observers measure the same value for the speed of light in all inertial reference frames? This has a profound effect on how we understand spacetime. It is difficult to reconcile this with the absolute time that you referred to in an earlier post.

Edited to add...
I'll be away for a few days, so don't worry if I don't get back to you immediately.

[Grand_Lunar]

There is not discrepancy because you start from wrong assumptions.
Assume that the energy in the centre of the sun is released only in transformations of neutrons (to combine protons in temperature about 15 million degree first they must be transformed into neutrons) into helium. For example in transformation of 112 of neutrons into 28 nuclei of helium is released energy equal to 784 MeV and are emitted 56 electron-antineutrinos.

Assume now that there is GASER. To release energy about 784 MeV there must appear 4 nuclei of iron as the result of combination of 56 nuclei of helium (about 400 MeV), and must appear 14 nuclei of helium as the result of combination of 56 neutrons (392 MeV). In these two transformation must be released almost the same energy. In first transformation are absorbed 8 electron-antineutrinos, in second are emitted 28 electron-antineutrinos, so in these two transformations is emitted 20 electron-antineutrinos.

Recapitulation: If there act GASER then is emitted about 3 times less the electron-antineutrinos and it solves the solar neutrino problem.

I do not see how the fusing of neutrons would create the energy observed in fusion, especially given that main sequence stars ARE made of mostly of hydrogen, and we thus have protons combining in the proton-proton cycle.
So, the first assumption is moot.

The assumption I made was from your own idea that helium combines to form Fe/Ni. You said nothing of neutrons combining, nor did you provide the details of the numbers involved in how many helium nucli were involved in the process.

56 nuclie of helium combine to form an element with 112 protons. You then say that releases 14 helium nucli, correct? That gives us an element with 84 protons: polonium.
Can you account for this?

[Grand_Lunar]

6.Ask questions to answer them there is needed computer of very high computational power (for example what is the detailed distribution of the DM in our Galaxy?).

A high powered computer would be a useful device to you so you could run simulations to test your theory.If you don't have one, then you could find some individuals who do.
Just your theory seems to work on paper doesn't mean that they would work in reality.

An example of the usefulness of a powerful computer in testing a theory would be the problem of magnectic white dwarves I asked earlier.
That problem is tenatively solved, based on computer simulations of the scientists theories.

Can you take into account that my theory is homogenous and coherent for all problems, and that is dual for microcosm and macrocosm, and that is based on one assumption that there exist the eterions which physical state is described by only seven parameters?

Yes, about that.
You mention the Titus-Bode law and how it relations to neutrino distances (or something like that). Does that law hold true with the other solar systems we've discovered? Remember, it was written before we found those other solar systems.

For your consideration on the neutrino problem: http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=35381

[Grand_Lunar]

- structure of photon?
- physical meaning of the de Broglie waves?
- structure of electric charge?
- physical meaning of the wave function?
- structure of particles? (there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma)
- internal structure of elementary fields (also physical meaning of the lines of forces)?
- structure of the object before the Big Bang?
- what phenomena lead to the visible distribution of galaxies?
- why there is obligatory the magneto-mechanical anomaly?

and most important problems:
- structure of neutrinos?
- the exit of our World from state of black hole?

- structure of photon: Last I knew, they are electromagnetic waves, but also can behave as particles, depending on the situation.

- physical meaning of the de Broglie waves: I have not heard of these, can you enlighten me?

- structure of electric charge: This is part of M theory, explained as the characteristics of the string.

- physical meaning of the wave function: What do you mean?

- structure of particles? (there does not exist the quark-gluon plasma): Are not protons and neutrons known to at least be made of quarks? M-theory suggests that those are also made of 'superstrings'.

- internal structure of elementary fields (also physical meaning of the lines of forces)?: What does this mean?

- structure of the object before the Big Bang?: Beyond our current scope.

- what phenomena lead to the visible distribution of galaxies?: Wouldn't that be the Big Bang itself? Remember, their distribution is changing as the universe expands.

- why there is obligatory the magneto-mechanical anomaly?: I have not heard of this, explain it please.

- structure of neutrinos?: Again, the strings themselves.

- the exit of our World from state of black hole?: Again, beyond our current scope.

Because the 10 and 26 dimensions have not a physical meaning, it is only useless mathematics which leads into raspberry bush. Also M theory is not dual for particles and cosmology and is not able explain many basic problems (see above).

Since we cannot percieve the underlaying dimensions suggested by 'M' theory, it is difficult for us to comprehend them. It is also suggested that they are the reason that gravity is not felt as strongly as the other three forces in our universe.
'M' theory is undoubtalbly still under revision the more we discover, so of course it will not seem to explain many problems. Given more time and research, it perhaps will.

Suppose it does turn out to be correct? What will that say for your theory?

[Sylwester Kornowski]

Now question I have not answered which are connected with cosmology or your statements not consistent with my theory.

[S4] Are you saying that the objects which comprise the Kuiper belt are ~15 billion years old?

Space between stars is filled by objects rejected by the big stars of first generation first of all just after the Big Bang (i.e. first of all the Fe+Ni meteors and gas composed of about 74% H and 26% He, but also in small amount chemical elements composed of following number of nucleons: about 16 (i.e. first of all O, N, C) and about 256 (they are transformed first of all into uranium 238 and lead)), space is also filled by objects rejected by the stars of second generation, for example by the supernovae and other stars created about 10-20 billion years ago (first of all the stone meteors but also the Fe+Ni meteors, comets, and H+He).

In the Oort’s cloud created by the last explosion of big star (earlier in the place of the big star there were the typical black holes – at the beginning there was 256 such typical black holes) about 15 billion years ago there must be the Fe+Ni meteors, but there are also the other objects mentioned above.

In the Kuiper belt created by the explosion of supernova Ia about 5 billion years ago must be the stone and Fe+Ni meteors, comets, but also the other objects mentioned above.

[S5] That they are composed of ~74% H, ~26% He?

Of course not (see above).

[S6] How did the matter ejected in the explosion coalesce? Why did it coalesce in approximately circular orbits at ~Kuiper belt distances from the Sun?

The Kuiper belt was created after explosion of supernova Ia about 5 billion years ago. This supernova was in the place the sun is now. The stars rotate so in the explosion there must be conserved the angular momentum – it caused that in approximately the orbits are circular. Why did it coalesce? Because in the explosion the matter had also different the radial velocities so they brought closer together.

[S9] Where have you published these models [of stars/stellar evolution]?

I answered this question many times but I must add that I have about 100 pages of rough copy and when the questions are connected with problems described on these pages I answer. It means that sometimes problems connected with my ultimate theory of the Universe are published for the first time on the BAUT Forum. Sometimes my calculations are made without delay because there are proper questions.

[S10] The results from these models?

The main problems connected with COSMOLOGY I described in many posts.

[S11] How well do these results correspond to the vast number of good astronomical observations (e.g. HR diagram, zone of instability)?

The output is consistent with the good astronomical observations. My theory differs from the mainstream theories by:
1.Nuclear reactions because there act: the GASER, the four-neutrino supersymmetry and the symmetry of decays of chemical elements in very high temperature.
2.The older stars contain less helium because there are two main transformations:
Hydrogen into helium and helium into iron with impurity of nickel. In the mainstream theories younger stars contain more helium because of explosions of stars.
3.In my theory first there was era of big stars, next era of stars of mass a little greater than the mass of sun because the big stars produced large amount of Fe+Ni and density of our World was higher, next era of stars type the sun.

Zone of instability is connected first of all with mass of star then there is not some difference.

[S12] To what extent do isochrones, in your models, correspond to those from standard stellar models?
[S13] How did you incorporate transitions from convective to radiative transport?
[S14] What values of opacity did you use for the various atomic (and molecular) species?
[S15] How do white dwarfs differ, in your models, from those in standard stellar models?
As 'age' is obviously a critical parameter in (observational) cosmology, can you please share with us the key differences between application of your ideas to the ages of stars (inferred from isochrones, metalicities, luminosity, etc) and those of standard stellar models?

It is strictly astrophysics. My theory of the World age and stars age I described in other posts.

[S16] Neutron stars?
[S17] Core collapse SN?
[S18] Type 1a SN?

I described these problems in other posts.