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

On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 0:50:06 +0000, rhertz wrote:

>
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:43:38 +0000, gharnagel wrote:

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

>
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

>
There is a HUGE PROBLEM with classic and modern mathematics (calculus,
arithmetic, geometry, etc.).
>
They CAN'T HANDLE NONLINEARITIES. There are no theoretical solutions for
non-linear differential equation, nor even geometry (ellipse perimeter,
etc.), non-linear integro-differential equations AND SO ON.
>
So, the solutions are:
>
1) Express principles and laws of nature IN A LINEAR FORM.
2) If you got non-linear equations LINEARIZE THEM (Ebers-Moll transistor
model and small signal transistors models).
3) If you got into a problem with non-linear equations, then USE
COMPUTERIZED NUMERICAL MODELS, which break down non-linearities into
almost infinite interconnected segments.
>
This is applied to EVERY BRANCH OF PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, ENGINEERING,
FINANCES, ETC.

I spent a college year solving partial differential equations by the
series method.  Many solutions were in the form of sine/cosine series.
You got an analytic solution in the form of an infinite series, but if
needed a practical solution, you had to truncate the series at some
point and accept an approximation.  Is this a "huge problem" with
mathematics, or a "huge problem" with the universe :-)

Think of elliptic integrals, transcendental expressions for natural
phenomena (like exponential decays, spiral 2D figures-Fibobacci curves,
etc.). Now try to find analytical solutions for models that contain
non-linear components, and tell me again that laws of conservation of
momentum and energy are perfectly described by LINEAR EQUATIONS. You
can't affirm that, and nobody couldn't nor can.

Matter itself is nonlinear.  That's the way nature is.  But as I pointed
out previously, that's irrelevant because Ein = Eout (in the
steady-state).

Besides the need to work with closed system that contain EVERYTHING,
science should work with CORRECT MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSIONS, which contain
non-linearities. Then, say goodbye to simplistic "LAWS" that you're
forced to accept since HS.

It's still Ein = Eout (in the steady state).  Of course, it takes
infinite
time to reach steady-state, so EVERY measurement is an approximation.
Real physicist as well as engineers understand this, why don't you?

Criticizing the current framework of physics and its models is
considered more heretic than questioning relativity.

Few physicists accepted SR in the beginning.  It's human nature to have
inertia.  I run into it all the time.

SO, WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF APPROXIMATIONS, AND ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE
ABSOLUTE VALIDITY OF EACH "LAW" IS SEVERELY PUNISHED. YOU'RE LABELED AS
LUNATIC, BEYOND CRANK NAME CALLING.

NOBODY with a thoughtful brain believes in "ABSOLUTE VALIDITY," except
maybe people that are autistic.  They say that good engineers suffer a
bit from autism, so do you have that problem?

But, as isolated systems don't have a REAL existence because of the
unknowns, any theory is just an approximation to the truth, which will
never be reached.

Since our measuring equipment isn't "absolutely" accurate, a system can
never be characterized absolutely anyway.

Think about the conservation of energy and momentum in the solar system.
Now tell me how can you devise a closed system for it. How many
variables are left out?

Who cares?  You seem to believe that if a law is not "absolute" it
should
be thrown out.  CoE, COM, ohms law, relativity, etc. are maps of nature
but they are not the territory.  We use them because they are good
enough
for most practical purposes.  Good enough so that if someone asserts
that
he has this little machine that puts out more energy than it consumes,
it
is proper to be skeptical.  Such claims have been shown to be hoaxes.
Pauli was correct to hypothesize a new particle than to throw up his
hands
and claim CoE is dethroned.  Maybe he was a bit autistic, refusing to
give
up CoE, hmmm?