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

Am Sonntag000030, 30.03.2025 um 18:55 schrieb rhertz:

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
1933 by Fermi) to solve the violation of energy conservation in beta
decay (when a neutron turns into a proton and emits an electron).
Scientists observed that the emitted electrons had varying energies,
rather than a fixed value as expected. The neutrino was ALLEGEDLY
detected experimentally by Cowan and Reines in 1956.

>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowan%E2%80%93Reines_neutrino_experiment
>
"Allegedly"? Is there an alternative explanation for positrons
being created in water close to a nuclear reactor?
>

....
>
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.
 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.
 UNLESS THAT, IN ANOTHER MACRO-SCALE (LIKE THE UNIVERSE) THINGS ABOUT THE
AMOUNT OF MATTER THAT'S CALCULATED DISAGREE WITH THE FUCKING RELATIVITY.
THEN THEY CAME WITH THE CRAP OF DARK MATTER AND ENERGY FOR THE 95$
MISSING. SAME SHIT THAN WITH NEUTRINOS IN THE QUANTUM WORLD.
 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?
 

As a non-physicist and pure hobbyist I had no such restrictions.
But I had thought about some of the problems mentioned since my times in school (what is quite long ago now).
My main own approach came actually from chemistry, mathematics and electronics and also from engineering.
Theoretical physics came MUCH later.
But I had an idea, which I named 'structured spacetime' and which would allow to address some of the problems in physiks, that I have heard about.
This idea can be found in my 'book' here:
https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Ur3_giuk2l439fxUa8QHX4wTDxBEaM6lOlgVUa0cFU4/edit?usp=sharing
There are some mayor differences to mainstream physics.
For instance, it is based on a continuum and not on particles of any kind.
Particles, mass and matter are treated as internal 'structures' (of/in spacetime).
That's why this concept is named 'structured spacetime'.
The idea is also relatively simple and 'streight foreward', though  VERY counter-intuitive.
It is already quite old (from 2008) and was the first thing, which I had written about physics.
But I would like to hear comments, anyhow.
As 'proof of concept' I would use 'Growing Earth' (which I regard as correct theory).
TH