0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I don't accept this nonsense.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.
#ResultsRequired
I don't accept this nonsense.Then give a reason for it. If you can dismiss something as nonsense without explaining why, then we can do the same thing with your model.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.No it doesn't, as I've explained. If mass is lost as weight is lost, then F=ma is preserved.
#ResultsRequiredThen do the experiment and get the results. Buy the equipment like I said in the earlier post.
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
In my theory
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 29/01/2023 10:32:50Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.The equation F=ma was invented by a human, Isaac Newton, not by God.
In my theory the difference between forces determines weight and the ratio between forces determines rate of fall. You didn't read my theory. Did you ?
This contradicts conservation of mass.
Earlier you said you can't do the experiment. So can't I. This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
what that has to do with what
Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.
Quote from: Kryptid on 29/01/2023 19:25:56Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead. In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.
Quote from: Yaniv on 29/01/2023 20:29:23Quote from: Kryptid on 29/01/2023 19:25:56Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead. In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.If they experience equal forces then they will have the same weight, because weight is a force.
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.
Quote from: Yaniv on 29/01/2023 23:33:37In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.But you said earlier that the force (i.e the weight) will depend on temperature.It does not.And you are still lying about your PoS idea being a theory.Why is that?
If charge is considered mass in your model, and objects lose charge (and thus mass) when they get hot, then why not just say that the mass and weight are both lost at the same rate as temperature increases? That way, objects falling at the same rate regardless of temperature happens naturally as a consequence of F=ma instead of in contradiction to it.
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 01:26:38I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.If the particles carrying away charge have mass, then mass would indeed be lost by the object being heated. The total mass of the Universe would still be the same, though, since those mass-carrying particles would still be out floating around somewhere.
There is a second experiment that would test your idea: dropping charged objects in a vacuum. Since you claim that the Earth has a net positive charge, then a negatively-charged object should fall faster than a positively-charged object (since the negative charge would obviously be directly attracted to the overall positive charge of the Earth, whereas a positive charge would have to rely on a local negative dipole to be attracted to the Earth (which is a weaker effect)).
In my theory T decreases the charge, forces and weight of an object,