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?
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?
PHYSICS IS A FUCKING FARCE, VALID ONLY FOR PARASITES (AND NOBEL
ENCOURAGED IT).
THE WORLD DEVELOPED THANKS TO INVENTORS AND ENGINEER SINCE SUMERIAN
TIMES, OR MUCH OLDER THAN THAT.
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.
The missing energy varied from 0.1 to 0.2 eV (millions of times lower
than electrons at rest). Pauli assumed that neutrinos might be massless,
like photons, and this kept in the '70s, with the Standard Model
(1970s). Analysis from Solar Neutrinos (1960s–2001) suggested that neutrinos oscillate, wich (de Broglie) require mass.
Up to date, the neutinos mass is UNKNOWN. As neutrinos proved to be the
JOKER CARD of particle physics, different types of neutrino emerged
since its invention TO JUSTIFY the conservation of energy. All three of
them were asigned a spin of 1/2 in the Standard Model, only for
equations involving SMEP charged particles. They are; Electron neutrino
(< 2.2 eV), Muon neutrino (< 0.17 eV) and Tau neutrino (< 15.5 MeV). The energies ARE STILL NOT KNOWN (so their mass, IF THEY HAVE IT AT ALL).
On 04/02/2025 12:57 PM, Aether Regained wrote:
rhertz:> 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.
The missing energy varied from 0.1 to 0.2 eV (millions of times lower
than electrons at rest). Pauli assumed that neutrinos might be massless, >>> like photons, and this kept in the '70s, with the Standard Model
(1970s). Analysis from Solar Neutrinos (1960s–2001) suggested that
neutrinos oscillate, wich (de Broglie) require mass.
Up to date, the neutinos mass is UNKNOWN. As neutrinos proved to be the
JOKER CARD of particle physics, different types of neutrino emerged
since its invention TO JUSTIFY the conservation of energy. All three of
them were asigned a spin of 1/2 in the Standard Model, only for
equations involving SMEP charged particles. They are; Electron neutrino
(< 2.2 eV), Muon neutrino (< 0.17 eV) and Tau neutrino (< 15.5 MeV). The >>> energies ARE STILL NOT KNOWN (so their mass, IF THEY HAVE IT AT ALL).
In psychology there is a well documented phenomenon, in which a
perpetrator accuses others of the very sin he is guilty of.
Pauli is the classic example of this. He was the one who coined the
term: "NOT EVEN WRONG" to describe a theory that could not be falsified.
In hindsight we see that it was his coping mechanism or a preemptive
measure he took, so others didn't accuse him of being "NOT EVEN WRONG"
with his unfalsifiable neutrino theory.
Yeah, it's usually called "projection".
Pauli was a pragmatist, as a physicist he wasn't much of a philosopher,
sort of a narrow view. The Pauli principle of course is part and parcel
of particle physics, since they aren't points and not perfect,
then I read that he was rather irascible and not very congenial,
then that his interactions as much discouraged others as made
any sorts positive contributions himself.
Or, after Pauli principle and Pauli/Dirac formalism and that,
he's mostly "not even wrong", ....
Neutrino theory isn't unfalsifiable, something like "virtual photons"
are quite worse, while of course "dark matter and energy" are pretty
much having falsified a usual sort theory with such type things.
I.e., one can re-write QED with a different mechanism and it could
be just as explanatory as "virtual photons", and, they don't have
the usual accoutrement of virtual particle auto-annihilation that
makes other kinds of virtual particles falsifiable, and, the
crisis in cosmology is a rather poor charade.
Anyways I'd like to think that Pauli had at least one good idea,
since otherwise Pauli principle is just a rather simple excluded middle,
in geometry, then otherwise he's more guilty of dumbing
down the discussion than being memorable for something greater,
it's not really that relevant, though for example I point to
Pauli principle for what it is and Pauli/Dirac a usual formalism.
There are others that suffice for the same things, ....
There's projection then there's also a sort of reverse projection,
though that's sort of more the passive than the active, say.
Anyways neutrinos are definitely a thing and the crisis in
cosmology is definitely a thing, and most people don't give
two cares about it, and most's opinions aren't worth two cents.
- Angular momentum IS NOT CONSERVED on Earth. MAYBE, AND LOCALLY, in
outer space and up to Mars. After Mars, many things are unknown yet.
As an example, using an ice dancer, angular momentum changes when
rotating with arms extended or close to the body. Now compute losses due
to friction, air dragging and additional unknown quantum phenomena. NOT CONSERVED.
- Linear momentum. Almost the same apply.
- Energy: Are planets REALLY verifying the LCE? They started to exist
from NOTHING and, millennia after millennia, some energy IS LOST! Why
does this happen and where the lost energy is going? Apply the same to galaxies, local universe, etc.
There are HUGE DIFFERENCES between retarded idealist physicists
and down to Earth good engineers. But YOU ARE NEITHER, PAUL.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 22:05:15 +0000, rhertz wrote:
There are HUGE DIFFERENCES between retarded idealist physicists and
down to Earth good engineers. But YOU ARE NEITHER, PAUL.
Paul certainly isn't a retarded physicist, and I don't known whether or
not he is an engineer, too. It's plain, though that Hertz is neither physicist of any stripe and he's definitely not a good engineer since he
has presented no data to support his baseless assertions.
“Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do.” -- Benjamin Franklin
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 )
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.
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, 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.
Not only the many influences of the Sun on Earth, but MUCH MORE
INFLUENCES from the Earth itself, that make the problem UNSOLVABLE.
Earth's rotation, dragging air and water in non-linear spiral patterns
plus the influence of the many layers of Earth's mantles on the oceans,
in particular due to breaks in the Earth's upper layer that let inner
Earth to warm up oceans, creating phenomena (El Niño, La Niña, etc.)
that affect the climate worldwide.
Add to these HOLES in the Earth's atmosphere that allow heat to come in
and to get out under several forms (like radiant power, atoms,
molecules) that come and go to the outer space.
And about this HUGE COMPLEXITY of modelling the atmospheric variables,
all what you say is that a High School differential equation solve this?
You are more stupid than what I thought once. An idiot without cure.
What THE FUCK do you know about energy transformation and conservationThe Milankiovitch climate model is the best they can do to attempt to
on Earth?
Earth behaves as a living organism, with secrets BEYOND OUR
COMPREHENSION, imbecile, and there is no science to prove that LCE works here, even for an instant.
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?
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:
SUMERIANOn Sun, 30 Mar 2025 16:55:51 +0000, rhertz wrote:
THE WORLD DEVELOPED THANKS TO INVENTORS AND ENGINEER SINCE
TIMES, OR MUCH OLDER THAN THAT.
)Yeah, engineers who believe in conservation of energy and momentum
leaksnot true. You cannot conserve energy. It would leak out. It always
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,
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.
Not only the many influences of the Sun on Earth, but MUCH MORE
INFLUENCES from the Earth itself, that make the problem UNSOLVABLE.
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?
more stupid than what I thought once. An idiot without cure.
QUOTING GARNAHELL:
all what you say is that a High School differential equation solvethis?
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 :-))
******************************************************************
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.
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%?
Do you see? THINK CRITICALLY and then you'll question even the simplest
law, like the Ohm Law.
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?
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 20:43:38 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Sun, 6 Apr 2025 16:12:10 +0000, rhertz wrote:
careerAnd CoE is KNOWN to be valid by engineers. I spent part of my
anddealing with the problem of keeping laser diodes from overheating
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!
INI question the validity of the "Law of Conservation of Energy" ONLY
BEINGABSOLUTELY CLOSED, ISOLATED SYSTEMS, WITH EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS
INTO THE MODEL.
OUT!CONTEMPLATE EVERYTHING IN YOUR LOCAL SYSTEM, UNTIL NOTHING IS LEFT
Then tell me that LCE is a real thing. Some aspects that you missed:
OUT.- From where does the energy powering the laser diode? Describe the
chain of mechanisms that provide such power, until NOTHING IS LEFT
- 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.
THENOnce you included everything, even quantum events, in your model
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.
SYSTEM.Then, TO SIMPLIFY, you start to let things OUT OF YOUR CLOSED
0.0000001%?Then, with a little help of arithmetic you can claim: ENERGY IS CONSERVED, YEAH! (But with which error margin? 0.1%, 0.001%,
Engineers understand that there is ALWAYS an error margin. Putting
a strait jacket on things like that on a physicist is hypocritical.
simplestDo you see? THINK CRITICALLY and then you'll question even the
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.
facesGot it? Physics IS A FARCE. Only applied engineering can save the
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.
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.
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.
Criticizing the current framework of physics and its models is
considered more heretic than questioning relativity.
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.
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.
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.
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 06:01, gharnagel pisze:
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.
You don't use relativity;
you're just asserting you do for religious reasons.
Like a christian asserting he loves his neighbours.
You don't use it because it is - practically - The Shit.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 5:14:55 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 07.04.2025 o 06:01, gharnagel pisze:
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.
You don't use relativity;
Ah, but I DO use it:
So why is Wozniak always denigrating relativity? Could it be for "religious" reasons?
Nothing is more reprehensible than Wozniak's stupid assertion
that relativity is wrong because t' = t in the GPS.
Maciej: Don't bother replying to this post
gharnagel , answer the following question, as you love so much
relativity and LCE:
You have a 1 Watt green laser (with an attached battery) placed in the
top of a pole of 100 mt.).
It's turned ON for just one second, expending 1 Joule.
On the ground, a receiver (with an attached battery) absorbs such energy entirely, and waste it as HEAT.
This set (laser-receiver) operates in vacuum. Assume that this
experiment is performed on the Moon.
From WHERE comes the EXTRA ENERGY created along the downward path of 100 meters, and that equals to:
Energy gain = 1 Joule x 100MG/(R^2 c^2)
M and R are the mass and the radius of the Moon.
This PROBLEM exists since 1911 (Einstein's gh/c^2).
As you can see, the conservation of energy in such an isolated system IS VIOLATED.
From where does the extra energy that appeared due to the blue shifting
of the laser beam in 100 meters?
Relativity DESTROY the Law of Conservation of Energy, and nobody said
shit about it.
The same happens with relativity and LCM.
Go ahead, EXPLAIN THIS VIOLATION OF THE LCE.
In your situation, T = 0 but there is still V. Consider a modification
of your experiment. The laser is sitting on a lunar mare and shoots its pulse horizontally to a lunar rover with a receiver. The mare is flat
so V = 0, but the rover is moving toward the laser and receives a blue-shifted pulse. Where did the extra energy come from? Doppler
shift, of course: T > 0. Whether the Doppler shift is due to relative velocity or gravitation, energy is conserved.
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 15:46:44 +0000, gharnagel wrote:
On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 13:29:23 +0000, rhertz wrote:
shiftingFrom where does the extra energy that appeared due to the blue
of the laser beam in 100 meters?
Go ahead, EXPLAIN THIS VIOLATION OF THE LCE.
There is no violation. You have ignored an energy input: The laser
is at a higher gravitational potential than the receiver. Either ignorantly or intentionally, you have ignored that potential energy
energy in your calculation. Total energy is H = T + V.
In your situation, T = 0 but there is still V. Consider amodification
of your experiment. The laser is sitting on a lunar mare and shoots
its pulse horizontally to a lunar rover with a receiver. The mare is
flat so V = 0, but the rover is moving toward the laser and receives
a blue-shifted pulse. Where did the extra energy come from? Doppler shift, of course: T > 0. Whether the Doppler shift is due to relative velocity or gravitation, energy is conserved.
"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."
-- Galileo Galilei
You are a complete imbecile by supporting general relativity,
gravitational time dilation and shit like that.
You accept the LIE of a connection between gravity and electromagnetism, asshole.
You are completely sold out to relativity, even when you don't know shit about this.
Explain the mechanisms by which GRAVITATIONAL POTENTIAL is transformed
into ELECTROMAGNETIC ENERGY (E=hf), AKA as blue-shifting. Also explain
the INVERSE: How come electromagnetic energy transform into
gravitational potential (red-shifting).
You don't know? Of course that you don't. NOBODY KNOWS, BUT
ACCEPT THIS SHIT IN SILENCE AND COMPLETE SUBMISSION TO RELATIVISM,
which you said that is used in engineering on a daily basis.
The above is just one more proof of your qualification as a gullible
idiot.
On Tue, 1 Apr 2025 22:05:15 +0000, rhertz wrote:
- Angular momentum IS NOT CONSERVED on Earth. MAYBE, AND LOCALLY, in
outer space and up to Mars. After Mars, many things are unknown yet.
As an example, using an ice dancer, angular momentum changes when
rotating with arms extended or close to the body. Now compute losses due
to friction, air dragging and additional unknown quantum phenomena. NOT CONSERVED.
- Linear momentum. Almost the same apply.
- Energy: Are planets REALLY verifying the LCE? They started to exist
from NOTHING and, millennia after millennia, some energy IS LOST! Why
does this happen and where the lost energy is going? Apply the same to galaxies, local universe, etc.
Hertz makes assertions without evidence. He has not "computed" the
losses nor even the energy or angular momentum. It's a bit late to
measure planet formation, but we do have some information of meteor
impact. No one, however, was there to make careful measurement on
the temperature to determine how much energy was lost due to friction, spallation, radiation, etc. We know a lot about radiation and its
behavior with temperature, which is where an appreciable amount of
what is lost. Planets grew by catastrophic collisions, and even
giant meteors create nuclear bomb temperatures. Hertz hasn't even
calculated a pittance of what would be required to justify his rantings.
"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain, and most fools do."Yes, ideed, but your .sig separtor is broken
-- Benjamin Franklin
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 493 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 19:56:07 |
| Calls: | 9,718 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,741 |
| Messages: | 6,182,080 |