Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know shit.

On 03/30/2025 04:53 PM, gharnagel wrote:

On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 16:55:51 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
On Sun, 30 Mar 2025 15:37:50 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

>
On Sat, 29 Mar 2025 0:50:18 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
In 1930 Wolfgang Pauli  proposed the existence of the neutrino

(named in

Up to date, the neutinos mass is UNKNOWN.

>
This is a bit disingenuous.  Neutrino mass is known to be less
than 0.45 eV at 90% confidence: arXiv:2406.13516.
>

....
>
MY CONCLUSION: Physics needs that neutrinos REALLY EXIST, otherwise
the law of conservation of energy is violated.

>
Why do you believe that energy is not conserved?  I mean, CoE has been
confirmed consistently in engineering and experimental physics.  Even
so, most physicists didn't go along with Pauli's hypothesis at the

time.

>
"I have done a terrible thing, I have postulated a particle that

cannot

be detected." – Wolfgang Pauli
>

How neutrinos are generated IS UNKNOWN.

>
They are generated in nuclear reactions.  What's so unknown about

that?

>

If neutrinos have mass or not IS UNKNOWN.

>
Logical fallacy. Straw man argument.
>

Tens of billions of USD wasted for nothing,

>
What about medicare payments to people 150+ years old?  They're less
detectable than neutrinos :-)
>

The existence of cosmic neutrinos is essential in astrophysics to
FILL THE VOID in calculations. Also, in cosmology, their role is
essential for such unproven theories like the BB.

>
When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail :-)
>

I smell a rotten fish around this.

>
If your fish were frozen in IceCube, it would be sun-tanned with
Cerenkov radiation generated from pieces of atoms suddenly
accelerated to hundreds of keV by ... nothing?
>

Meanwhile, physicists making six figures plus expenses are more than
happy, and have zero accountability.
>
HOAX!

>
No one has seen an electron, so radio, tv, radar, computers, cars,
electricity are all HOAXES!

>
>
ENERGY IS NOT CONSERVED AT ALL. IT'S VALID ONLY ON EARTH AMONG A
GROUP OF SELF-ENTITLED INDIVIDUALS CALLED PHYSICISTS. THEY FIGHT
FOR THE INVIOLABLE DOGMA OF THE LCE, OTHERWISE THEY AND THEIR
CAREER ARE FUCKED.

>
Completely false.  CoE is confirmed daily by engineers working in
aircraft design, fluid flow, thermal dissipation, and electronics.
>
"In real-world applications, understanding the conservation of energy
helps engineers design efficient systems like pipelines and aircraft
by optimizing energy use."
>
https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-chemical-engineering/conservation-of-energy
>
>
"This course introduces the scientific principles that deal with energy
conversion among different forms, such as heat, work, internal,
electrical, and chemical energy. The physical science of heat and
temperature, and their relations to energy and work, are analyzed on
the basis of the four fundamental thermodynamic laws (zeroth, first,
second, and third). These principles are applied to various practical
systems, including heat engines, refrigeration cycles, air conditioning,
and chemical reacting systems."
>
https://me.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/ME-40-Thermodynamics.pdf
>
If you don't design with CoE in mind, you're not a good engineer.
>

AT THE BEGINNING OF XIX CENTURY, NATURAL PHILOSOPHERS (A.K.A.
PHYSICISTS) WERE GLAD TO INCLUDE HEAT IN THE OVERALL ACCOUNT OF ENERGY
WITHIN A CLOSED SYSTEM. THEY'VE RESTED ON THIS CONCEPT AND THE ONE OF
MOMENTUM CONSERVATION, SO THEIR EXCEL CALCULATIONS ARE ACCEPTABLE.

>
You don't believe in conservation of momentum, either? :-))
>

UNLESS THAT, IN ANOTHER MACRO-SCALE (LIKE THE UNIVERSE) THINGS ABOUT
THE AMOUNT OF MATTER THAT'S CALCULATED DISAGREE WITH THE FUCKING
RELATIVITY.

>
Why should relativity agree with regions are beyond our ability with
which to interact?  It makes sense to use what we know (which has been
confirmed locally - like, in our solar system) and try to apply it
nonlocally to see if it still works.  Maybe it does and maybe it
doesn't, but that doesn't change the fact that it does work locally.
>

THEN THEY CAME WITH THE CRAP OF DARK MATTER AND ENERGY FOR THE 95$
MISSING. SAME SHIT THAN WITH NEUTRINOS IN THE QUANTUM WORLD.

>
More straw man arguments.  Of course, you have no clue about any
alternative for why galaxies don't fly apart.  Or why neutrons in
stable nuclei suddenly decide to blow apart.
>

THAT ENERGY CONSERVATION (AS WELL AS MOMENTUM CONSERVATION) ARE JUST
MYTHS, THERE IS THE THEORY OF THE CREATION OF THE UNIVERSE FROM A
PROVERBIAL ATOM THAT WENT OFF (FROM THE JESUIT PHYSICIST, 100 YEARS
AGO). EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE ROTATES, AND THERE ARE NOT ANY SINGLE
PROOF THAT THERE ARE EQUAL AMOUNTS OF ROTATIONS CLOCKWISE AND
COUNTERCLOCKWISE IN ALL THE CELESTIAL BODIES THAT JUSTIFY SUCH STUPID
IDEA (JUST BECAUSE LOCALLY IT SOUND NICE).
>
SAME WITH MASS CONSERVATION LAW (STILL EXIST, ISN'T IT?). WHERE IS THE
SAME AMOUNT OF ANTI-MATTER TO COUNTERACT THE MATTER EXPELLED FROM THE
POINT THAT EXPLODED?

>
More straw man argument.  You have no explanation for why, so don't
denigrate attempts to explain what you can't.
>

PHYSICS IS A FUCKING FARCE, VALID ONLY FOR PARASITES (AND NOBEL
ENCOURAGED IT).
>
THE WORLD DEVELOPED THANKS TO INVENTORS AND ENGINEER SINCE SUMERIAN
TIMES, OR MUCH OLDER THAN THAT.

>
Yeah, engineers who believe in conservation of energy and momentum :-))

I don't believe in conservation of "un-linear" momentum. That is
to say, it results an open system where the exchange of "real" and
what are called "fictitious" forces, which are quite real, makes
that various extended bodies as open systems, see invalidated
the usual local, classical, linear "conservation of momentum".
Add "fictitious forces" and see what it gets you.
The conservation of energy has that energy pretty much
is the fungible "constant" or as of a quantity, yet
among differing and various states of matter and
energy, energy can be going more than one direction.
Add "non-adiabatic" and see what it gets you.
It still makes sense the conservation of energy,
yet various law(s), plural, and they're all in
effect according to configuration and (amount of)
energy in experiment, "dynamics", has that in usual
engineering cases, dynamics start to contribute
character and cases at only a few orders of magnitude.
Then, lots of the usual most familiar, "engineering
formulas", are statics, and about linear cases, then
that classical mechanics actually has an account
where for example the Magnus effect is "empirically"
more than the usual theoretical account, about "heft",
or about the differences between the linear and rotational,
or kinetics and kinematics, as for example a reading of
Einstein's second mass-energy equivalency shows, and that
in the first mass-energy equivalency, would be among all
the infinitely-many terms of the usual derivation's
truncated Taylor expansion.
Add "multipole moment" and see what it gets you.