Fake Science Exposed
I am a member of this dissident science organization that is falsifying establishment Fake Science in many fields. We are being taught science fiction in our educational establishments and the media. Just as Fake News is feeding us lies instead of news.
FAKING THE SCIENCE FOR PUPILS - PART V
Thu, Feb 11 at 10:55 PMFAKING THE SCIENCE FOR PUPILS – PART V
It seems that my newsletters are rising a greater interest to many universities lately, but in the same time the bull in the China shop has awaken too and its visceral anger creates more damages as usual ...
Docile and with heads bowed, an entire scientific community has being supporting some intellectual criminals for decades without considering that such direct or indirect support is a fraud for the society and many generations of pupils and studens have got a futile education.
This is the second delivery for this newsletter using a secondary domain. If you and all your colleagues are receiving this information for the first time, it is highly probable that your institution is still blocking my principal domain. It would be better to discuss with the people in charge about this ,,problem” because there are going to be supplementary fees when the license is going to be asked.
On the other hand, it is important that emails are opened in html format and not as text. Acyba software, which makes this delivery possible, can make a correct statistic with people who open the emails only as html format.
If you open the email in text format, I do not know that you opened the email and I keep sending the same newsletter second or third time to you from other domains. This is annoying for you, but also, time and resource consuming for me..
I am going to excuse myself in advance for those who receive the same newsletter a second time from a completely different reason. If a reader opens the email late, when the queue for the second delivery is already running, I cannot undo the process of sending.....
Thanks for your understanding..
This newsletter is going to demonstrate once again how pervasive the imbecility in modern science is!
The newsletter is mainly about nuclear physics and neutrino, but don't be scared if you are an outlier for this field. Excepting one section which is more brain consuming, all the other are dedicated to pupils and the debate is much larger than nuclear science field. One can find here information about classical mechanics, astronomy, quantum theory, electricity, thermodynamics, chemistry, etc.
In fact, this newsletter rules out the quantum theory from the nuclear domain once for all and in the near future, the classical quantum theory, formulated for atomic structure, will have the same fate.
The first section is a warming up discussion about the ,,concentration” of atmospheric neutrino and if they can be detected.
Strange enough, for this atmospheric neutrino concentration, I could not find a scientific text making a simple estimation of its range so the discussion is made based on some assumption.
Even by transforming Earth into a radioactive hell, the atmospheric neutrinos are going to be outnumbered by the Sun neutrino in a ratio of at least 100 to 1.
By considering only one specific flavor like muon neutrino, the situation remains the same. Sun neutrino are assumed to oscillate and, at the Earth surface, one third of the total are going to be detected as muon neutrinos and this means about 21,6 billions per cm2 and second.
Can someone think that a real experiment is able to select only a handful of atmospheric muon neutrinos and make them specifically interact with the detector?
Only an imbecile mind could think that having such situation, it is possible to put in evidence the atmospheric neutrino and a supposed atmospheric variation for them.
Some top personalities in modern science need to learn elementary physics again and a postulate formulated in a previous newsletter has to be the best starting information.
Postulate: For very weak signals, one cannot find an useful signal if the overlapping noise or other perturbing signals are an order of magnitude bigger.
The section presents also a real topic of research regarding the conversion of Nitrogen-14 to Carbon-14 just in case someone wants to invest some pocket money in it.
The title of the second section is more than explanatory about its content: neutrino and the astronomy of the impossible.
There are some scientists who advance the idea that neutrino astronomy is going to offer a lot of advantages in studying far away celestial objects.
I watched a video where such an enthusiast neutrino fanatic considers that neutrino astronomy is in the stage the optical astronomy was about four centuries ago.
Most of the developed nations are allocating serious amounts of money for neutrino research and in fact for some countries this has become a top priority. Many such neutrino detectors are in different stages of construction, with some of them already working at partial or full capacity.
What a wondrous view of the universe could we have when such telescopes capture the neutrino light coming from the most striking events taking place in the far away universe!...
Well, before dreaming so high, it is necessary to look a bit at some ,,other facts”!
For such neutrino fanatics but for laymen too, a simple question is necessary to be answered: Could someone perform optical astronomical measurements during daytime?
For any common sense mind the idea would appear preposterous! How could someone see stars or other cosmic objects when the Sun is glaring into the telescope field of view ....
Yet, in the neutrino case, how could some astronomers or nuclear physicists think that they can do neutrino astronomy if there is no way to block the huge flux of neutrinos coming from the Sun?
The Earth is transparent for the Sun neutrinos (one in 10 billions is stopped by passing through entire Earth), and therefore, at any location on Earth, at any moment, the neutrino telescope is going to be full of solar neutrinos.
As far there is no way to block the neutrino flux coming from the Sun, in order to detect something by this method, the neutrino flux coming from a cosmic object has to be more intense as the flux coming from Sun.
This section brings into discussion such ,,possible” cosmic objects or events which are supposed to be intense emitters of neutrinos.
The case of supernova 1987A, i.e. the most clear detection of neutrino so far is the first case analysed. Interestingly enough, the flux of neutrinos coming from this supernova was estimated quite the double of the solar flux and mon chapeau! … this supernova signal should be detected!
For a ,,theoretician” who has never seen a laboratory in his life or for a common laymen the results could be considered satisfactory and clear. Yet, for someone who stayed a decade in a laboratory, and is very keen on measurements techniques and results interpretation, there is something missing in the entire picture.
If a beam of 105 billions neutrinos from supernova gave birth to 9 events in the detector, the baseline of the detector generated by the solar flux (65 billions) has to be much greater as the observed one! No such fact was ever observed and this means the results for SN 1987A were cooked.
Maybe someone would consider my interpretation a bit inconclusive so the case of a supernova explosion in Andromeda, the closest bigger galaxy to us, is further analyzed; unfortunately such a supernova flux is less than 5% the solar flux and it is obvious that no detection is possible.
As far I remember, my telescope of few hundreds Euros offered a quite reasonable view of Andromeda galaxy, so I suppose that such instrument would be useful for detecting a supernova there.
Why should a mad science spend a billion $ or Euro for such neutrino telescope which are not able to do the job a toy optical telescope can do!?
Well, needles to say that even a pupil can deduce that neutrino method is not useful for other more distant supernovae at all!
The billion neutrino telescopes are not going to be able to detect a simple red giant star in our galaxy although the considered star is visible with an unaided eye!
The idea to be taken home is simple: Neutrinos, if exist, are completely different from photons. One cannot cover the source of neutrino with a blanket and do measurements for other sources around. There is also a postulate for those who wants to remain in this field of research:
Postulate: All the neutrinos detection of cosmic events are going to be only backward retrofit of data without any use for real science.
The third section is about neutrino oscillation and how these oscillations enters in contradiction with QM superposition principle and with classical conservation laws. It is the most brain consuming section and dedicated mostly to aficionados.
The forth section bring into discussion the matter antimatter problem and the challenges the neutrino branch is currently facing. There is a general introduction to this topic, to the mechanism and the current controversies regarding neutrino and antineutrino particles.
It is obvious that this section could not miss one of the most debated topic these days in this branch: is neutrino identical with antineutrino or not?
The case of double beta decay is also analyzed here and the conclusions are not so pleasant for the modern science. Two postulate are formulated and exemplified here:
Postulate : A mass particle cannot be its own antiparticle.
Postulate: The transfer of a form of energy through a volume of space occupied with matter has to generate a fingerprint in that matter.
There is striking experiment exemplified here which has some more important consequences: it rules out the entire electromagnetism.
The fifth section is dedicated to laymen and demonstrates how beta decay demolishes quantum mechanic theory.
A postulate and a corollary are exemplified too.
Postulate: The conservation of linear momentum during a so called quantum process (jump) rules out the process of energy quantization.
Corollary: Momentum conservation determines the redistribution of energy.
The exemplification of this postulate for recoil momentum from a riffle makes correction even for some classical concepts.
One can only imagine how a similar approach is necessary for electrons and what linear momentum and energy conservation is going to bring in case of atomic theory...
The sixth section is expanding the collection of paradoxes in science and presents the mass defect paradox in nuclear physics.
When some nuclear reactions are analysed, the mass defect calculation concludes that these reactions are exothermic but based on the total energy variation of nucleons in nuclides the same reactions are endothermic.
The exemplification is made for tritium and C-14 beta decay reactions.
Some other correlations between isotopes characteristics of the same element or between different elements are presented and these preliminary data blow off the entire nuclear physics.
The seventh section insists on beta decay and how this process rules out both the quantum mechanism and the mass energy conversion. It tries to offer a new perspective for the beta decay reactions and it analyses the ,,trigger” mechanism for the various kind of beta decays.
The case of electron capture should be one of the most debated topic in the fake neutrino science. One can see how Ph D in nuclear science are not able to make a difference between a gamma photon of a specific energy and a neutrino ….
The eights section frames the future of high energy physics for the next half century. A letter addressed to CERN management team is commented too.
It would be wise for young researchers to ask themselves a simple question before pursuing a career in high energy physics: What is the use of breaking apart some nucleons when the framework for the entire nuclear physics is falling apart?
It would be advisable for those common sense scientists who already work in this field to re-route to other domains and do some more useful things for society.
The section further exemplifies two such direction of research: electrochemistry and nanotechnologies.
For those who want to start working in electrochemistry, there is a very important advice which has to be followed: everything has been written in the field is wrong.
There is a link to an experiment which demolishes the entire branch of electrochemistry and even entire chemistry: a battery where both electrodes undergo an oxidation process!
The electrochemistry field of research has another big advantage for the newcomers: there is no fundamental theory formulated in this field, there is going to be no fundamental theory ever and any battery you want to build needs a starting from zero approach...
I suppose that after the release of this newsletter the neutrino domain is going to become a ghostly field of research; only some mummies or some walking zombies are going to appear from time to time. Are you still afraid of them? ….
More difficult is going to be for some institutions like nobel foundation who prized an entire list of imbecilities related to neutrino.
There is no place for them in the science of the future and they already know it !
The last section is a copy carbon from previous newsletters (Old game, same scene, new actors and figureheads….), because it is important for people to get in touch with the expected unexpected...
If you want to contact me please try to use the email contacts on pleistoros.com webpage. Most of the time the emails are blocked or bounced so you have to insist.
The link to this newsletter:
https://www.pleistoros.com/en/newsletters
Sincerely,
S o r i n C e z a r C o ș o f r e ț
Comments
Post a Comment