[Kryptid]

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.

Did you miss this?

So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again. If you keep doing it, I'm going to start considering it spam and close this thread. So be very careful about how you proceed from here on out.

As for conservation of mass...

And I say that I don't accept derived equation based on conservation of mass.

Conservation of mass is something guaranteed by Noether's theorem. I want you to look carefully at the word and take note that it says "theorem" and not "theory". A theory is evidence-based, whereas a theorem is proof-based. Big difference. Have you ever heard of Pythagoras's theorem? I'm assuming so, since you apparently have a PhD. It's that same kind of thing.

By rejecting conservation of mass, you are rejecting something that has been proven.

My theory is consistent with the experiment in this video.

Then it is consistent with F=ma.

In my theory neutrons (PE) and neutrinos (PE) are closer to each other than to protons (P2E)

Then your model is wrong because that is incorrect. Neutrons and protons are both baryons while neutrinos are leptons.

We don't have a single experiment to test the masses of protons, neutrons and neutrinos

Nor do you need one. There is more than one way to figure something's mass out.

I suspect the masses derived from different experiments are not calibrated correctly.

Your suspicions are not evidence. If you can't give us evidence that the calibrations are incorrect, then please don't bring it up again.

They do have a tiny charge compared to P, E and P2E particles and could have been missed.

They don't need a charge at all to have their mass measured in the first place, so this is irrelevant.

[Yaniv (OP)]

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.

Did you miss this?

No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.

Conservation of mass is something guaranteed by Noether's theorem.

Is she God ?

By rejecting conservation of mass, you are rejecting something that has been proven.

The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.

[Bored chemist]

Is she God ?

No, she is real.

I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level

NO. IT IS NOT.

It is wrong at every level.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma

But we know that mass is conserved.
It's one of the few results in science that is actually proven to be true.

And, because we know it is true, we know that your idea is false.

You need to stop preaching it.

[Bored chemist]

No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.

Which experiment are you saying hasn't been done?

[Kryptid]

No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.

Even if it did, the results couldn't contradict conservation of mass because conservation of mass has been proven.

Is she God ?

A person doesn't have to be God in order to discover a mathematical proof. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? A² + B² = C² in Euclidean space. That is also a proof. Pythagoras wasn't God.

Do you know what Noether's theorem is?

The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.

It's not "rushing to conclusions" when you already have proof. Even if weight did drop with a temperature increase, that is something that would have to be simultaneously consistent with conservation of mass.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.

https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620730118980395012/photo/1

[Bored chemist]

Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.

https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620730118980395012/photo/1

Bollocks.

[Kryptid]

Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.

By ignoring what I've said and posting more self-promotion, you are starting to run afoul of rule #5 again.

Do you want to have a productive discussion about your model or not?

[The Spoon]

Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c

I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'

The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.

So you quote a paper as evidence, and then when it is pointed out that it does not support your your argument, you claim that it is invalid due to lack of a control. You are either lying or a fool. Likely both.

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.

[The Spoon]

In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.

It is not a theory- it is deluded nonsense from somebody who cannot even be consistent about evidence (see comment above). Repeating your delusions is just spamming.

[Origin]

In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.

You keep making statements but do not back them up with any compelling evidence.  It would be helpful if you picked one of your ideas and spent some time showing the evidence for that idea. 

[Kryptid]

In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.

You are breaking rule #5 again. Please address what I've said or this thread will be locked.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.

You are breaking rule #5 again. Please address what I've said or this thread will be locked.

I think this has been the fate of his previous threads.
The question is why would we let him do it again?

[Yaniv (OP)]

My God Yahweh promised me a Temple.

[Bored chemist]

My God Yahweh promised me a temple.

Sue for breach of promise.

[The Spoon]

My God Yahweh promised me a temple.

And what does belief in a fictional sky fairy have to do with science? No wonder you cannot provide evidence.

[Bored chemist]

And what does belief in a fictional sky fairy have to do with science?

A strong negative correlation.

[Kryptid]

My God Yahweh promised me a temple.

What does that have to do with whether or not your model is correct?

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.