Path: ...!2.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Thomas Heger <ttt_heg@web.de>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: The HOAX of the neutrino invention. After 95 years don't know
 shit.
Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2025 08:05:30 +0200
Lines: 136
Message-ID: <m4upkfFthe5U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <0dd990630edbc9332716605722eb087a@www.novabbs.com>
 <137de285af1075fd38879770e4639130@www.novabbs.com>
 <e3a7231ccaeda2a33dcba756f18dd831@www.novabbs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net FWGb6tIib1xQGrGP+juuTgQiiQZ4HO6rHZLKGfpn8nDevwQ+js
Cancel-Lock: sha1:+FVPjQsVO2h6utxJaQ3tfgoJBCs= sha256:KuD9NEIVGEDi8b/bPSCQY3OForHbpIKbIXQ3WX0N04k=
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Content-Language: de-DE
In-Reply-To: <e3a7231ccaeda2a33dcba756f18dd831@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 6326

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