0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
You said:'Maybe he can't bare the thought of sharing the Nobel Prize with me and my name remembered for a long, long time for theorizing this prediction ?'Which is batshit insane. Even for a conspiracy theorist.
Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired
Quote from: The Spoon on 16/11/2017 21:48:27You said:'Maybe he can't bare the thought of sharing the Nobel Prize with me and my name remembered for a long, long time for theorizing this prediction ?'Which is batshit insane. Even for a conspiracy theorist.Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired
As has been stated, the onus is on you to produce evidence. Which you have not. What is with the hashtag? Do you think it makes you sound more credible?
We have already been through this before. I don't have the skills to do the experiment myself think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists. The University of Leeds was not interested to do the experiment and I couldn't find scientists elsewhere to do the experiment. The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget the point of this thread. #ResultsRequired
If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?
The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget
If someone published the results in the scientific literature or on the internet so others can read and scrutinize the report I would lean towards believing the results.
If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?If someone published the results in the scientific literature or on the internet so others can read and scrutinize the report I would lean towards believing the results.
And a second and third independent repeats of the experiment with similar results should definitely make me believe the results. #ResultsRequired
Yes.They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.Come back when you have better data.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/11/2017 20:22:06Yes.They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.Come back when you have better data.I thought we agreed the flat lines on thermogravimetric graphs are corrections and not conclusive.
You didn't have better data.Why did you come back?You made the assertion, but failed to provide evidence. Then you decided that it was the world's job to prove you were right rather than accepting that your hypothesis needs your support first.
So if you heat up matter, introduce negative heat particles, lower the positive charge of an object, you lower the difference between forces acting on the object and its weight.
All existing experiments to detect electric charge in photons has turned up null. Within the limits of experiment, a photon cannot have an electric charge greater in magnitude than 10-35 times that of an electron.
An object dropped from a height will accelerate towards the Earth. When it hits the ground, the kinetic energy it gained will turn into heat. If heat has a negative charge, then that matter generated negative charge out of nowhere
Nuclear explosions release enormous amounts of heat from potential energy stored inside of nuclei. Your hypothesis therefore says that positively-charged matter is somehow capable of releasing negatively-charged heat.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/11/2017 00:32:46You didn't have better data.Why did you come back?You made the assertion, but failed to provide evidence. Then you decided that it was the world's job to prove you were right rather than accepting that your hypothesis needs your support first.I came back to this public forum to demand from scientists, obviously not you Boring Chemist, to do an experiment to test conservation of mass.
Get this thread back to Physics forum to find scientists to conclude the experiment.
Incidentally, are you aware that conservation of mass is verified as a high school experiment?Perhaps your problem is pitching to a university when the local school science group would be a better forum for your experiment.
You have to accept that your "theory" is new (actually it's not a theory) so why don't you think it should be in the "New Theories" section?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/11/2017 12:05:29You have to accept that your "theory" is new (actually it's not a theory) so why don't you think it should be in the "New Theories" section?Because this thread is about an experiment to test Conservation of Mass.
There are two ways of looking at that.Either the experiment has been done, and your prediction is wrong - in which case there's nothing to say, or the experiment has not been done, in which case this thread can't be about that (non existent) experiment.