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

On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 16:12:10 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
QUOTING GARNAHELL:

Clever, but not unique :-))

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.

And is dEin/dt = dL/dt + dH/dt simple enough for you?  (Of course,
if the temperature rose too high, radiation loss would also have to
be included, but the laser diode would have ceased to operate long
before that became important).  By your lights, CoE couldn't be
confirmed unless we measured that and everything else to 10^(-100)%.
And then, not even that!

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 :-))
>
>
******************************************************************
>
I respect your experience with laser diodes. It's OK, but this is A
LOCAL THING IN AN OPEN SYSTEM!
>
I question the validity of the "Law of Conservation of Energy" ONLY IN
ABSOLUTELY CLOSED, ISOLATED SYSTEMS, WITH EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS BEING
INTO THE MODEL.
>
CONTEMPLATE EVERYTHING IN YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM, UNTIL NOTHING IS LEFT OUT!
>
Then tell me that LCE is a real thing. Some aspects that you missed:
>
- From where does the energy powering the laser diode? Describe the
chain of mechanisms that provide such power, until NOTHING IS LEFT OUT.
>
- To where are going the energy of the laser beam and the generated
heat going?
  Include every single subsystem IN THE CLOSED SYSTEM that gather
the generated energy, up to the last molecule, atom, electron.
>
Once you included everything, even quantum events, in your model THEN
YOU CAN TALK ABOUT A CLOSED SYSTEM, AND DO THE MATH TO PROVE THE LCE
AS CORRECT-
>
Too complex for you? OF COURSE, as it is for everyone else.

By your lights, there is no such thing as you describe.  Your "closed
system" is a canard.  No reasonable engineer would characterize the
operation of laser diodes by including the losses in the electrical
power plant, line losses, and power supply.  Don't you claim to be an
engineer, but engineers deal with "close enough for all practical
purposes."  So you're NOT an engineer.  Just WHAT are you?
Your assertion that "LCE" cannot be confirmed unless we do all your
"requirements" is false and irrelevant anyway.  It is sufficient
to measure all the inputs and outputs to a system.  That makes it
a closed system.  An isolated system is harder to accomplish,
particularly with your unscientific requirement that everything
must be measured to 10,000,000+ significant figure accuracy.

Then, TO SIMPLIFY, you start to let things OUT OF YOUR CLOSED SYSTEM.
Then, with a little help of arithmetic you can claim: ENERGY IS
CONSERVED, YEAH! (But with which error margin? 0.1%, 0.001%, 0.0000001%?

Engineers understand that there is ALWAYS an error margin.  Putting
a strait jacket on things like that on a physicist is hypocritical.

Do you see? THINK CRITICALLY and then you'll question even the simplest
law, like the Ohm Law.

I've measured that, too, for all practical purposes.  Of course,
diodes, etc. have nonlinear resistance.  I've dealt with them, too,
and power still equals current times voltage.

Got it?  Physics IS A FARCE. Only applied engineering can save the faces
of retarded physicists, highly self-entitled imbeciles.
>
Why do you accept things without DEEP QUESTIONING THEM?

Ah, but I DO.  I questioned SR, so I considered all of the assumptions
until I understood them.  All theories have domains of applicability.
Part of what true scientists do is understand those limits.
 “The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its
limits”
-- Albert Einstein