Enter the content which will be displayed in sticky bar

Neutrinos Continue to Waste Money, Time, and Minds

Neutrinos Continue to Waste Money, Time, and Minds

According to scientists at Fermi Labs, proof of neutrino oscillation was found as seen here in Forbes magazine article entitled: “Little Particles that May Help Explain Why We’re Here”. Neutrino oscillation for those of you who do not know, is the “idea” that neutrinos change type while flying through space. According to the Forbes article, neutrinos are the reason we are here. That is something I agree with. But not because all matter in the universe depends on neutrinos, but because neutrinos, like dark matter, are inventions and we have to stop this nonsense. That is why I am here, to help stop this nonsense.

Dr. Ricardo Carezani

Dr. Ricardo Carezani

As everyone knows, I, a student of Dr. Ricardo Carezani, PHD in physics from Argentina, agree with the findings of my mentor that neutrinos, like dark matter, were invented in order to keep a mainstream theory intact without modification. With neutrinos, it is Einstein’s special relativity equations they wanted to keep from modifying. As we now know thanks to Dr. Carezani, the calculations of special relativity have a fatal flaw in that they have a redundant frame both mathematically and physically and that when removed, reveal what Carezani calls “autodynamic” equations which can explain the universe without the neutrino. (See http://neutrinos.autodynamics.org).

But, since nerds (like myself) need to earn a living and some of them play the game of fame, scientists continue working and spending lots of money on experiments to find these unicorns.

I have seen news programs with neutrino scientists explaining their work and I always look into their eyes while they talk to the journalists. And every time look into the eyes of these scientists I see the same thing: some disbelief. Their facial expressions read like a book and they have a look of doubt about their work that cannot be hidden from the camera.

Dissidents Have No Excuse

Ok, we know mainstream scientists are simply going to keep working and using their positions to perpetuate their unicorn world. But what about dissidents.

As I have already reported numerous times, if a dissident has a pet theory and they are looking for mainstream proof of what could possible be aether or gravitons, they often turn to the neutrino. It seems to have the characteristics of what dissidents are looking for for an aether or gravity particle. But we know they do not exist. That is, if you study Carezani’s work.

So why do dissidents sometimes cling to the neutrino? Because they are desperately trying to find “aether” or “gravitons” and it is much more spectacular to say that neutrinos are aether or gravitons than it is to say is something we can’t detect directly. But ironically, neutrinos can never be detected directly so dissidents this does not hold water. Dissidents will actually close their eyes to Carezani’s work for one of two reasons:

1) Their theory or model can predict neutrinos so it is more support for their particular model of the universe.

2) They want to find something real to base their aether or gravity that is supported by the mainstream and maybe the mainstream will accept their new model of the universe.

Unfortunately, dissidents who look to neutrinos are committing the same crimes as the mainstream in that they want them to support their theories instead of looking to be correct.

Occam’s Razor: Carezani Wins

If you are a dissident and still “believe” in the invented neutrino, than you have to explain how your more complicated model with a neutrino is better than Carezani’s theory without.

I think Carezani’s work should be read by everyone in the CNPS. He did the work for us. It simply requires us to read this work and understand it.

So, if you are a member of the CNPS and haven’t read Carezani and insist on the existence of neutrinos, then you, like the mainstream, conveniently close your eyes to what supports your ideas instead of looking for truth.


In the end, we dissidents can’t criticize the mainstream if we do the same as they: cherry-picking data to fit our theories. We have heard of Carezani’s work and can see the strong argument against the invented neutrino. The mainstream never gives themselves a chance for any alternatives to their particle zoo world because:

“the more particles in the zoo, the more Nobels to be won”

— David de Hilster

But in the end, every new “neutrino” find and announcement pains me in that it represents millions more wasted on something that is invented, has ridiculous properties that even other physicists aren’t buying, and most sadly, occupy the minds of supposedly very intelligent scientists on the inventing, finding, and reporting of ghosts.

Written by

Neutrinos Continue to Waste Money, Time, and Minds (7)

  1. Jeff Baugher

    Going through the website the last critical debate on neutrinos (which I know nothing about) was 1992. Any more current critiques?

    • David de Hilster Post author

      Jeff: unfortunately almost nothing. Only Carezani and Tom Lockyer were showing the neutrino was incorrect and Tom died in 2012. A couple of reasons for not much fighting. One, mainstream particle physicists aren’t super interested in its detection but use it in their reactions when needed. Two showing it wrong opens up a MUCH bigger problem in mainstream physics and like Einstein being wrong, too volatile a subject to touch. Carezani’s work in my opinion is very clear especially given his Nucleus-Nucleus collision explanation with the corrected SR equations and no need for the neutrino.

      • David de Hilster Post author

        Also Jeff, the year of the criticism is not an argument. Timeframes do not matter. It is the math and logic that matters. Just be careful. Timeframe is much like mainstream critics that say something is “old”. Newton’s equations are REAL old. Higg’s particle reactions are fairly new but all “fairy” tales. So timeframe is not a valid argument in debate unless talking about wine, food, halflife, and the like.

        • Jeff Baugher

          I wouldn’t consider the lack of recent criticism as any indication on the merits of the argument. Fritz Zwicky’s observations about galaxies was ignored for decades until better observations and calculations forced a rethinking in those who were willing (while others can bury their heads in the sand on recent observations). Guess everyone is entitled to their own subjective reality, even if it doesn’t match the objective one.
          Btw, just finished your movie. Great job! Looking forward to getting the conferences larger and listening to even more ideas first hand.

          • David de Hilster Post author

            Thanks for the kudos for the movie. Let me know if you show it to others and what their reactions were. Overall, the general public continues to like it.

  2. Franklin Hu

    I don’t think neutrinos can be dismissed as a figment of our imagination because there is definitely something that is getting detected in the neutrino experiments. We can see what direction they come from and we know they come from the sun, nuclear reactors and supernove. So something physical is getting detected in these experiments as opposed to dark matter which hasn’t been detected in anything but a mess of equations on a chalkboard.

    So while neutrinos may exist, this whole idea of neutrino oscillation is a complete fantasy. I would say the experimental results could just as easily be explained as there being 3 ways that a neutrino can be detected and there is only a single neutrino with variable amounts of energy.

    • David de Hilster Post author

      Franklin, you can’t go through life not reading Carezani’s arguments, then asking questions that Carezani answered over 20 years. For example, Carezani’s answer to what are they detecting: “Why do they shield neutrino detectors: from false hits”. They are detecting alph particles, muons, etc.

      Carezani has answered ALL of these questions. This is a problem in the mainstream, they don’t read dissident arguments.

      You obviously have not read Carezani’s work. So please, READ. Then ask your questions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *