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

On Sat, 5 Apr 2025 2:49:16 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 22:36:13 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

>
On Fri, 4 Apr 2025 19:28:31 +0000, Charleton Christakos Dou wrote:

>
gharnagel wrote:

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

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

)

>
not true. You cannot conserve energy. It would leak out. It always

leaks

out, sooner or later.

>
Yep, it's called radiation.  Engineers and scientists measure it
all the time.  Energy from the sun impinges on the earth, some is
reflected back into space, some is absorbed and some heats up the
earth.  Fortunately, the warmer earth sends more infrared energy
back into space.  Otherwise, we would all be roasted.
 Conservation of energy means that earth reaches an equilibrium
temperature.  It's a simple differential equation.
You DO understand simple calculus, don't you?

>
There are so many institutions working on this subject for decades
that you wouldn't believe, simpleton. And they are using supercomputers
to try to get EVEN AN APPROXIMATION to the complex models developed
to figure out what would happen in the next hour, day or week, and
THEY CONSTANTLY FAIL MISERABLY.
>
There are no SIMPLE differential equations to model climate,

Do you think I was talking about CLIMATE, lunkhead?  Your response is
a straw man assault, as expected from you.
The subject is CONSERVATION OF ENERGY, dunderhead, and the earth
obeys it.

nor even complex sets of N-Dimensional matrixes, with algorithms
and software that need constant real time feed of information
gathered by vast arrays of sensors, satellites, etc., that make
the general problem to predict the BALANCE OF ENERGY IMPOSSIBLE
TO BE SOLVED.

This is an inverse straw man argument: bringing in all kinds of
irrelevant complications to make the initial question see to be
impossible to solve.  Earth has an effective albedo which describes
how the earth reflects electromagnetic radiation.  The earth's
average temperature describes how the earth radiates EMR.  Energy
comes in from the sun, more energy comes from radioactive decay,
oxidation, etc.  The DETAILS of each of these are where you're
coming from, but that doesn't invalidate conservation of energy.

Not only the many influences of the Sun on Earth, but MUCH MORE
INFLUENCES from the Earth itself, that make the problem UNSOLVABLE.

If you can't quantify them, then you have no argument against CoE.

Earth's rotation, dragging air and water in non-linear spiral
patterns blah, blah, blah.

all what you say is that a High School differential equation solve this?

I said a simple DE, but, of course, I exaggerated for the sake of
promoting discussion.  After all the disingenuous BS about unsolvable
details and deprecating assaults, you finally get to the crux, but then
you don't attack the obvious result: Energy out = Energy in.  If not, we
would eventually either freeze or roast.
And CoE is KNOWN to be valid by engineers.  I spent part of my career
dealing with the problem of keeping laser diodes from overheating and
I can tell you that Electrical power in = [light power + heat power]
out.
It's not necessary to go into the quantum mechanics, solid state
physics,
population inversion, or stimulated emission or optical reflection at
facets or anything else.  If you disagree with that, then you are:

more stupid than what I thought once. An idiot without cure.

Now THAT I can agree with :-))