0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
So this predicts the following order of masses (from least to greatest): positron, electron, proton, neutrino, neutron with four particles, neutron with six particles. Does that sound good?
No. These numbers predict curvature of charged particles in electric/magnetic fields akin to mass/charge ratio in a mass spectrometer. The smallest number curves most and appear least massive and the largest number curves least and appears most massive.
The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles.
I'm not looking for mass-to-charge ratio, I'm just looking for mass. What determines mass alone?
I think you are looking for something that does not exist.
In practice, any metal object will have a surface layer of oxide, moisture, grease, fingerprints and squashed flies, and various inclusions of related substances or other metals, so it will lose mass when heated.
The theory can therefore only be tested if it produces some numbers that are significantly larger than these experimental errors.
Even if looking inside the canteen is a legitimate way to test for the presence of water, the researchers all know that it isn't necessary at this point. They already know it's empty.
Quote from: Kryptid on 13/01/2018 00:03:35Even if looking inside the canteen is a legitimate way to test for the presence of water, the researchers all know that it isn't necessary at this point. They already know it's empty.Results required.
Yes. I thought about it more and concluded the positive charge of a positron has to be higher than the negative charge of an electron.
The natural motion of a neutron passing through an electric field is almost straight.
Results required.
Let's see if these make any more sense to you:- "My theory predicts that the Sun is cold. To test this, we should send a spaceship to the Sun and measure its temperature directly with a thermometer. If the thermometer says that it's cold, then we will have to find a different explanation for all the data that says it is hot."- "My theory predicts that water molecules contain uranium atoms. To test this, we should build a very powerful microscope to look at water molecules. If the microscope sees a uranium atom in the water molecule, this will falsify all of the data that says that water is H2O and a different theory will be needed to explain that data."- "My theory predicts that the Earth is flat. To test this, we should drill a hole all the way through the Earth. If we drop a camera through this hole and it keeps falling even after it comes out the other side, then that will prove the Earth is flat and a new interpretation for the evidence that says it's round will be needed."You argument is every bit as inane as the three posted above. The only difference is in the specific ingredients you've used in your recipe.
Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?
It's your hypothesis.How did you come to the conclusion that it was responsibility for the experiment to test your insane hypothesis rests with anyone but you?
This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.
As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.
You need to talk to CERN they regularly test conservation of mass, energy and momentum and will show you the conditions under which these are conserved.
You might also show them your model of particles and im sure that if they find it more accurate than the existing one they will adopt it.
Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.