Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yaniv on 08/11/2017 19:15:24
-
Classical #physics predicts weight (W) should NOT change at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum. Relativistic #physics predicts W should INCREASE at increasing T in vacuum. My theory predicts W should DECREASE at increasing T in vacuum and can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and most of the rest of #physics. Over the past ten years I contacted thousands of scientists to weigh a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results. I did Not get the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
-
I think the experiment should be carried out using the principle of a calorimeter. Place a heater, thermocouple and precision balance inside a vacuum chamber. Heat the chamber and record how many calories are required to raise the temperature by say 10 degC and also take weight readings of the balance. Next, place a metal sample on the balance and repeat the heating process and take another calories and weight readings. Subtract the initial measurements from the metal sample measurements to tell how many calories were absorbed by the metal and if any changes in weight were observed.
-
Can you provide us with a summary of why you think it should decrease?
-
I think the experiment should be carried out using the principle of a calorimeter.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Because that experiment is done frequently.
There's a bit of kit specially for doing it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
You can rest assured that, if your ideas were right, people would have noticed.
So you are wrong.
-
I read thermogravimetric graphs often use base line calibration and other modifications.
-
I read thermogravimetric graphs often use base line calibration and other modifications.
Nobody said it was easy.
However, if there was a consistent effect of temperature on weight, it would have been spotted.
May I remind you tat, while the millions of TGA results might not be perfect, every single one of them is one more experimental datum than you have for your idea that weight changes with temperature.
There are also thing like observations of satellites whose orbits would go haywire when they heated and cooled if you were right.
They don't.
You aren't.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffiles.yaniv-stern.webnode.com%2F200000023-60d4861cbe%2F450%2F21%2520predictions.jpg&hash=8572550e63e77e6a98e85128ac1c690c)
In a positive universe positive matter experiences positive repulsive forces from all directions (Figure 21a). When forces from opposite directions balance an object remains suspended in space and weightless. When forces from opposite directions are unequal, an object is pushed by the stronger force towards the weaker force (Figure 21b). A free object moves towards the weaker force while a stationary object gains weight. The difference between opposite forces determines weight, large difference is heavier and small difference is lighter (Figure 21c). 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. (Rate of fall (g) is determined by the ratio between forces acting on an object).
-
May I remind you tat, while the millions of TGA results might not be perfect, every single one of them is one more experimental datum than you have for your idea that weight changes with temperature.
My research suggests a link between weight and temperature could exist. #ResultsRequired
There are also thing like observations of satellites whose orbits would go haywire when they heated and cooled if you were right.
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
-
My theory...
You don't have a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
At best you have an unsubstantiated hypothesis .
Since it's at odds with many real-life observations, what you have is a mistake.
-
You don't have a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
At best you have an unsubstantiated hypothesis .
Since it's at odds with many real-life observations, what you have is a mistake.
Let the results of the experiment decide. #ResultsRequired
-
You don't have a theory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
At best you have an unsubstantiated hypothesis .
Since it's at odds with many real-life observations, what you have is a mistake.
Let the results of the experiment decide. #ResultsRequired
As explained earlier, the experiment has been done many times.
If your opinion doesn't agree with the real world, it is not because reality has made a mistake.
-
As explained earlier, the experiment has been done many times.
Send a reference.
-
So if you heat up matter, introduce negative heat particles,
What are those?
Did you make them up?
Is there any evidence for them?
lower the positive charge of an object,
Most objects don't have a positive charge on them, so your idea is irrelevant to almost everything anyway.
Might it be better if you started by learning some science?
-
As explained earlier, the experiment has been done many times.
Send a reference.
OK, here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
-
OK, here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
I can't see any graph with the results of the proposed experiment.
-
OK, here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
I can't see any graph with the results of the proposed experiment.
That would be because there isn't one.
However the article does showthat TGA is done on a frequent basis in labs all over the world.
All of those labs would be getting anomalous answers if you were right.
They are not doing so.
It is because you are wrong.
-
However the article does showthat TGA is done on a frequent basis in labs all over the world.
All of those labs would be getting anomalous answers if you were right.
Not if weight reduction at increasing temperature is calibrated.
-
How about this?
The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf
Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.
-
However the article does showthat TGA is done on a frequent basis in labs all over the world.
All of those labs would be getting anomalous answers if you were right.
Not if weight reduction at increasing temperature is calibrated.
What do you think "calibrated" means?
-
How about this?
The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf
Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.
Do you know what type of modifications were introduced to the final form of the graph ? I suspect small undesired changes were eliminated to highlight the process of decomposition of the chemical. Other papers Glaser, Metrologia, 1990 show weight of 20 gram metal heated by 5 degC lost 100 micrograms.
-
What do you think "calibrated" means?
I think small changes in weight unrelated to the process under investigation are smoothed out.
-
So if you heat up matter, introduce negative heat particles,
What are those?
Did you make them up?
Is there any evidence for them?
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 20:08:41
lower the positive charge of an object,
Most objects don't have a positive charge on them, so your idea is irrelevant to almost everything anyway.
Might it be better if you started by learning some science?
I think you better read my theory.
-
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
So W = mg. Not the most impressive advance in theoretical physics in the last 400 years.
-
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
So W = mg. Not the most impressive advance in theoretical physics in the last 400 years.
My theory predicts W (weight) should decrease at increasing temperatre but g (rate of fall) should remain the same at increasing temperature. If this is the case decided by experiments specifically designed to test this prediction ,and not experiments designed to measure other processes like chemical decomposition, then m (mass) is not a constant and this equation is falsified.
-
You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.
-
Not all matter is positively-charged. Electrons, for example.
-
Not all matter is positively-charged. Electrons, for example.
Why don't you read my theory ?
-
Why don't you read my theory ?
I read your reply in post #6. Are you saying that the content you posted is not accurate? Definitely sounds like you were saying that matter is inherently positively charged there.
-
I read your reply in post #6. Are you saying that the content you posted is not accurate? Definitely sounds like you were saying that matter is inherently positively charged there.
The section posted is one sub-chapter from a whole theory.
-
The section posted is one sub-chapter from a whole theory.
Well, are you saying that matter is positively-charged or not?
-
Well, are you saying that matter is positively-charged or not?
Matter is made up of more positive than negative particles giving it a positive charge.
-
Matter is made up of more positive than negative particles giving it a positive charge.
If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge.
-
If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge.
Positive repulsive forces between atoms are balanced by contributory electric forces the negative adhesive forces of negative particles and the repulsive forces of the environment (entire universe).
-
Positive repulsive forces between atoms are balanced by contributory electric forces the negative adhesive forces of negative particles and the repulsive forces of the environment (entire universe).
Unless those negative particles you speak of have the exact same magnitude of charge as that of matter, then there will still be a net charge present which will make atoms repel each other.
-
Unless those negative particles you speak of have the exact same magnitude of charge as that of matter, then there will still be a net charge present which will make atoms repel each other.
Positive atoms in a positive universe is like neutral atoms in a neutral universe. On large scales the positive charge of the universe pushes its expansion.
-
Positive atoms in a positive universe is like neutral atoms in a neutral universe.
Um, no. Otherwise we would never be able to observe two positively-charged objects repelling each other. If space-time has a net positive charge (as I assume you mean when you say "positive universe"), that would do nothing to alleviate the repulsion felt between two neighboring, positively-charged atoms.
-
Um, no. Otherwise we would never be able to observe two positively-charged objects repelling each other. If space-time has a net positive charge (as I assume you mean when you say "positive universe"), that would do nothing to alleviate the repulsion felt between two neighboring, positively-charged atoms.
Two atoms at close proximity become polarized with a weak positive pole facing each other and a strong positive pole facing away from each other. The weak poles decreases repulsive forces between atoms and the strong poles increase repulsive forces from outside.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpublic%2Fpicture_quotes%2F4b%2F24%2F4b247edbc2232fb2c5a9034f4595b1eb%2Flawrence-m-krauss-1117535.jpg&hash=04ab81a43c709ee5f1adae71028a81ca)
#ResultsRequired
-
Two atoms at close proximity become polarized with a weak positive pole facing each other and a strong positive pole facing away from each other. The weak poles decreases repulsive forces between atoms and the strong poles increase repulsive forces from outside.
So what happens when you have a crystal of solid neon where the atoms are arranged in a cubic close-packed lattice? Each atom is surrounded by 12 other atoms, each one of those peripheral atoms having another atom directly across from it on the other side of the central atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres).
-
So what happens when you have a crystal of solid neon where the atoms are arranged in a cubic close-packed lattice? Each atom is surrounded by 12 other atoms, each one of those peripheral atoms having another atom directly across from it on the other side of the central atom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close-packing_of_equal_spheres.
The distributions of electrons in atoms inside a crystal will be different with more complicated geometry.
-
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.azquotes.com%2Fpublic%2Fpicture_quotes%2F4b%2F24%2F4b247edbc2232fb2c5a9034f4595b1eb%2Flawrence-m-krauss-1117535.jpg&hash=04ab81a43c709ee5f1adae71028a81ca)
#ResultsRequired
It's true that the ultimate arbiter is the experimental result.
Without that, any hypothesis can be discarded without a moment's thought.
And you have no experimental data.You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.
I did, and I read the follow-up which says
"Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
So, to clarify, there is nothing to explain.
I think you better read my theory.
As I explained, you don't have a theory.
You barely have a hypothesis.
-
You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.
I did, and I read the follow-up which says
"Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
So, to clarify, there is nothing to explain.
You may wish to visit this link http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/
-
You may wish to look at papers (M. Glaser, Metrologia 1990 & Dmitriev et al, Measurements Techniques 2003) showing W of heated metals decreases at increasing T in air.
I did, and I read the follow-up which says
"Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
So, to clarify, there is nothing to explain.
You may wish to visit this link http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/
OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and I saw that he has claimed a change in mass of an object set to vibrate.
But he didn't show how he excluded the effects of non-linearity in the bearings of the balance he used to make the measurement.
Any competent balance supplier will tell you that balances don't work when shaken.
So, by the simple trick of ignoring the most basic instructions for using the equipment, he got an anomalous result.
So what?
Since he's clearly not competent (and possibly dishonest) I didn't bother to look at any of his other stuff.
-
OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and I saw that he has claimed a change in mass of an object set to vibrate.
But he didn't show how he excluded the effects of non-linearity in the bearings of the balance he used to make the measurement.
Any competent balance supplier will tell you that balances don't work when shaken.
So, by the simple trick of ignoring the most basic instructions for using the equipment, he got an anomalous result.
So what?
Since he's clearly not competent (and possibly dishonest) I didn't bother to look at any of his other stuff.
Seems not definitive. #ResultsRequired
-
OK, I did.
I found this
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/change.htm
and I saw that he has claimed a change in mass of an object set to vibrate.
But he didn't show how he excluded the effects of non-linearity in the bearings of the balance he used to make the measurement.
Any competent balance supplier will tell you that balances don't work when shaken.
So, by the simple trick of ignoring the most basic instructions for using the equipment, he got an anomalous result.
So what?
Since he's clearly not competent (and possibly dishonest) I didn't bother to look at any of his other stuff.
Seems not definitive. #ResultsRequired
"Results required" is right, and so far you have posted none.
Have you got any?
-
"Results required" is right, and so far you have posted none.
Have you got any?
No, I don't have the skills to do the experiment on my own. I think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists to test possible link between weight and temperature.
-
"Results required" is right, and so far you have posted none.
Have you got any?
No, I don't have the skills to do the experiment on my own. I think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists to test possible link between weight and temperature.
And, once again; it has been- many times..
No such link was found.
Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.
Your posts are just rambling nonsense as Kryptid has pointed out..
-
Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.
This lazy attitude falls short of the vigor expected from the scientific method.
(https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/sagan.jpg)
-
Nobody is going to waste time looking carefully because there is no reason to expect that they would find anything.
This lazy attitude falls short of the vigor expected from the scientific method.
(https://openparachute.files.wordpress.com/2015/09/sagan.jpg)
Did you read the second half?
It doesn't take "the most ruthless sceptical scrutiny" of your ideas to show that they are wrong.
Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."
That's it.
Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.
You need to forget it or revise it.
You quoted Larwence Kraus, yet you are failing to to any of the three things he said are important.
You are not following the evidence- you are persistently ignoring it.
You are not just failing to try to prove your idea wrong, you are ignoring the fact that others have already proved that you are wrong, and you are ignoring the experimental evidence which shows that your idea is wrong. (and failing to provide any supporting evidence).
Do you actually believe that's how you should do science?
If you actually want someone to do the experiment for you,
you will need to change all of those.
You will need to follow the evidence,
explain the failings of your idea and revise it
Get at least some evidence that it might be correct.
You will fail on all of those tests, so nobody will squander resources on your fool's errand; why would they?
-
I had never heard of a TGV machine (apart from the French train...)
These instruments can quantify loss of water, loss of solvent, loss of plasticizer,
decarboxylation, pyrolysis, oxidation, decomposition, weight % filler, amount of
metallic catalytic residue remaining on carbon nanotubes, and weight % ash.
You expect that the weight of a substance could change on heating, especially if it is in a reactive atmosphere.
- Sometimes the weight will decrease due to evaporation at the higher temperature, with the vapor carried away out the chimney. But this weight doesn't come back when you reduce the temperature again.
- Sometimes the weight will increase due to reacting with the oxygen in the air at the higher temperature. And this weight does not disappear when you reduce the temperature again.
The increase or decrease is not proportional to temperature:
- You can hold the sample at a constant elevated temperature, and the liquid will continue to evaporate, and the oxygen will continue to react. The weight changes without a change in temperature.
- Once all the liquid has evaporated, or the oxygen has reacted with all of the substance, increasing the temperature again will not cause more liquid to evaporate, or more oxygen to react. The weight does not change despite a change in temperature.
So I think this myth is BUSTED (I hope that phrase is not copyright...)
-
The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf
Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.
The flat bits on the graphs are not true weight measurements but corrections - baseline corrections. These flat lines therefore cannot be used as final proof weight does not change at increasing temperature. Check this video. Only experts in the field should know precisely which other modifications are introduced to the final form of a graph. I suspect other undesirable changes in weight such as Glaser heat convection effects and a reduction in weight predicted by my theory are also removed in the final form of a graph. The experiment I proposed specifically designed to test a link between weight and temperature. #ResultsRequired
-
You really don't seem to be getting this.
YOU need to provide results or a plausible theory.
YOu can't expect others to waste resources on something known not to make sense.
Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."
That's it.
Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.
You need to forget it or revise it.
-
You really don't seem to be getting this.
YOU need to provide results or a plausible theory.
YOu can't expect others to waste resources on something known not to make sense.
Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."
That's it.
Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.
You need to forget it or revise it.
I briefly addressed this question in post 36. Here it is again. Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other. The weak positive poles decrease the repulsive force between the atoms and the strong positive poles increase the external repulsive forces pushing the atoms together.
-
You really don't seem to be getting this.
YOU need to provide results or a plausible theory.
YOu can't expect others to waste resources on something known not to make sense.
Among other things Kryptid pointed out in post 31 that your idea is impossible when he said "If that was the case, then matter would not be stable because atoms would repel each other due to their net positive charge."
That's it.
Once someone points out the first tiny hole in an idea (never mind the gaping rift torn in yours) that idea is dead.
You need to forget it or revise it.
I briefly addressed this question in post 36. Here it is again. Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other. The weak positive poles decrease the repulsive force between the atoms and the strong positive poles increase the external repulsive forces pushing the atoms together.
Yes, I saw that.
But it is nonsense.
Weak or strong, positive things repel.
It's also simply observably false.
And this " Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other."
Well... why would they?
-
And this " Two atoms at close proximity to each other become polarized with weak positive poles facing each other and strong positive poles facing away from each other."
Well... why would they?
Imagine a positively charged atom with a spherical negative shell. When this atoms is in close proximity to another positively charged atom, the negative shell shifts towards the other atom creating a weak pole. The other side of the atom simultaneously becomes a strong pole.
-
Imagine a positively charged atom
Atoms have no net charge.
It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.
-
Atoms have no net charge.
It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.
I guess we have to stick to the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
-
Atoms have no net charge.
It's like asking me to imagine a circular square.
I guess we have to stick to the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
How many times?
YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY RESULTS.
The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.
-
The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.
Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?
-
The only experiments that have been done show no anomaly.
Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?
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.
-
Are you talking about the flat baselines on thermogravimetric graphs ?
Yes.
They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.
They are not great and not conclusive. #ResultsRequired
-
Do you think that putting a hash in " #ResultsRequired" somehow stops it being YOUR job to get those results?
There is, indeed, a requirement for results.
That's because you have not provided any.
So, as I said, come back when you have better data.
-
There is, indeed, a requirement for results.
That's because you have not provided any.
So, as I said, come back when you have better data.
The University of Leeds advised me to drop theory without the results of the experiment and elsewhere I couldn't find scientists interested to do the experiment and publish the results. Do you think I would have been here had I found physicists to conclude the experiment ?
-
Do you think I would have been here had I found physicists to conclude the experiment ?
No.
I think the University of Leeds is right to essentially dismiss your idea.
-
I think the University of Leeds is right to essentially dismiss your idea.
And I think the University of Leeds and other scientists should complete the experiment to conclusion.
-
I think the University of Leeds is right to essentially dismiss your idea.
And I think the University of Leeds and other scientists should complete the experiment to conclusion.
You may think that.
They think that there are better things to do with their limited funds.
Only one viewpoint can be right.
Do you think it is more likely to be the viewpoint of a university full of clever people, or a person posting nonsense on the web?
-
And I think the University of Leeds and other scientists should complete the experiment to conclusion.
You may think that.
They think that there are better things to do with their limited funds.
Only one viewpoint can be right.
Do you think it is more likely to be the viewpoint of a university full of clever people, or a person posting nonsense on the web?
And I think physicists repress the results of the experiment to protect funds, jobs, careers and reputations of many scientists. #ResultsRequired
-
And I think physicists repress the results of the experiment to protect funds, jobs, careers and reputations of many scientists. #ResultsRequired
Oh boy, another conspiracy theorist...
-
Oh boy, another conspiracy theorist...
Conspiracy fiction or conspiracy fact ? #ResultsRequired
-
And I think the University of Leeds and other scientists should complete the experiment to conclusion.
You may think that.
They think that there are better things to do with their limited funds.
Only one viewpoint can be right.
Do you think it is more likely to be the viewpoint of a university full of clever people, or a person posting nonsense on the web?
And I think physicists repress the results of the experiment to protect funds, jobs, careers and reputations of many scientists. #ResultsRequired
Imagine, for the sake of argument that something about your idea caught my attention and that I worked in the kind of metrology lab that could reasonably do the experiment.
OK so I go to my boss and I say " I saw this idea on the internet. There's a bloke who thinks that hot things weigh less than cold things".
It's likely that my boss will say "He's an idiot- we would have noticed" but, just for a moment, lets assume you are lucky and he says "well- if you can be bothered to waste your lunch hour on it, that's fine by me. Just remember to get the real work done before you go home."
So I do the experiment.
And- here's the bit that stretches credibility- imagine that I actually find an apparent effect.
Well, what happens when I tell the boss about it?
Either he says "that's interesting- check if the result's real" or he says " dear me; we can't be finding out new stuff. Stop it at once".
Well, in one case he ends up with his name on a paper that wins me a Nobel prize, and in the other case, he doesn't.
What does he have to lose by choosing the sensible, scientific, path?
That's the reason why so many "conspiracy theories" like this are daft.
Scientists want to rock the boat, discover interesting things and get famous (not to mention rich).
-
What does he have to lose by choosing the sensible, scientific, path?
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 ?
-
What does he have to lose by choosing the sensible, scientific, path?
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 ?
So you think the scientist in question would rather remain anonymous than share a Nobel prize. That really is clutching batshit insane conspiracy theory straws.
-
What does he have to lose by choosing the sensible, scientific, path?
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 ?
As a scientist, you suffer from delusions of adequacy.
-
As a scientist, you suffer from delusions of adequacy.
And as a scientist, you keep missing the ball. #ResultsRequired
-
As a scientist, you suffer from delusions of adequacy.
And as a scientist, you keep missing the ball. #ResultsRequired
Yeah? but at least he is a scientist.
-
Yeah, but at least he is a scientist.
Who doesn't care about results.
-
Yeah, but at least he is a scientist.
Who doesn't care about results.
But the point is that you have no results. You also seem to believe in rather convoluted nutty conspiracy theories about scientists suppressing results because they may not want to share a Nobel prize with you.
-
Conspiracy fiction or conspiracy fact ? #ResultsRequired
Fiction until demonstrated to be fact.
-
But the point is that you have no results. You also seem to believe in rather convoluted nutty conspiracy theories about scientists suppressing results because they may not want to share a Nobel prize with you.
I think the primary reasons scientists are not interested to publish the results are loss of funding for many projects in theoretical physics and loss of jobs, careers and reputations.
-
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 ?
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.
-
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
-
Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired
And, as I keep saying.
Yes, you are required to provide results or shut up.
-
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
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?
-
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
-
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?
-
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.
-
The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget
I haven't seen it used as a mnemonic device before, but if it works for you I will try using it.
You see, we don't really need to ask this question
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.
#NoYouDidn'tBecauseYouPretendedItWasACalibrationError.
-
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
-
And a second and third independent repeats of the experiment with similar results should definitely make me believe the results. #ResultsRequired
It seems you forgot; even with the hashtag
#NoYouDidn'tBecauseYouPretendedItWasACalibrationError.
-
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.
I thought we agreed the flat lines on thermogravimetric graphs are corrections and not conclusive.
-
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.
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.
If you had something that looked like a valid theoretical basis then people might take you seriously.
Instead you seek to say that you "think physicists repress the results of the experiment to protect funds, jobs, careers and reputations of many scientists." and " 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"
Well, the problem here is that you are not doing anything that looks like science.
Come back when that changes.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
(1)It seems here that you are saying that something which can add heat to an object must also be negatively-charged. A laser beam can definitely heat matter up, easily over a million Kelvins if it's strong enough. By extension, your hypothesis proposes that light contains "negative heat particles" and thus must have a negative charge. 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. That's one hundred thousand million million million million million times less than an electron, at most. That's a falsification of your hypothesis.
(2) 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 (which would violate conservation of electric charge). That's a second falsification of your hypothesis.
(3) 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. That's another violation of conservation of charge. That's a third falsification of your hypothesis.
-
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.
In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments.
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
In my theory matter is made up of positive and negative particles and when two objects collide some negative particles are released as heat.
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.
In my theory atomic nuclei are also made up of positive and negative particles.
This thread was originally posted in Physics forum to do an experiment to test Conservation of Mass. You moved thread to New Theories forum and seem to suggest the experiment should not be carried out because you don't like my theory. Even if my theory is wrong this experiment should be completed to test Conservation of Mass. Get this thread back to Physics forum to find scientists to conclude the experiment.
-
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.
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.
The reason why your "demand" is laughable has already been explained.
Did you come back to get laughed at?
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.
-
Get this thread back to Physics forum to find scientists to conclude the experiment.
Just as soon as you start doing physics the mods might consider that option.
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?
-
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.
This experiment in not being carried out at high precision necessary to detect small changes in weight and should be repeated at highest precision measurable. My theory also predicts weight differences between reactants and products in chemical reactions. In exothermic reactions products should be heavier than reactants and in endothermic reactions products should weigh less than reactants. But my original prediction is more fundamental cold matter should weigh more than hot matter.
-
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?
Because this thread is about an experiment to test Conservation of Mass.
-
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?
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.
The experiment's never going to be done until you come up with a reason to suppose that established physics is wrong.
Your "explanation" of why a change should occur makes no sense, so you shouldn't be surprised that nobody is leaping to test it experimentally.
Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.
-
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.
My first experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum has not been done (at least does not appear in the literature). The chemical reaction experiment has been done but not at sufficient precision to find changes in weight and should be repeated at highest precision measurable.
-
Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.
-
In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments
Scientists know how to measure the charge of photons despite the fact that they are moving at the speed of light. They can look at light emitted by distant objects in the Universe and determine whether they have been affected by magnetic fields or not (which a moving charged particle inevitably would be): http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/jul/06/new-limit-placed-on-photon-charge (http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/jul/06/new-limit-placed-on-photon-charge). There are no signs of photons having even the tiniest bit of charge.
In my theory matter is made up of positive and negative particles and when two objects collide some negative particles are released as heat.
In my theory atomic nuclei are also made up of positive and negative particles.
That doesn't fix the problem. If you propose that an increase in temperature of matter comes from a decrease in its positive charge caused by the addition of negative heat particles, then you are still proposing that the charge of matter must change when it is heated up (i.e. its charge becomes increasingly negative as its temperature rises). Therefore, the source of negative charge cannot be matter itself. Otherwise, it would already be just as negatively-charged before the reaction as it is after the reaction. That, in turn, would demonstrate the temperature has no dependence on charge.
Come to think of it, matter would have to contain an infinite amount of negative heat particles. If you pick up a book and drop it, the atoms in the book would release heat particles. However, you can pick it up and drop it again and again. As long as energy can be expended to lift the book against gravity, there is no limit to the amount of heat particles matter would have to release. Since matter does not have an infinite negative charge, this can therefore be safely ruled out.
-
There are no signs of photons having even the tiniest bit of charge.
In my theory gravitational lensing is an electric interaction between negatively charged light particles and positively charged stars and galaxies. The color of stars is also described as an electric interaction between negative light particles and positive stars. Large stars slow down the speed of light more than small stars and appear bluer. Blue light in my theory travels slower than red light.
If you propose that an increase in temperature of matter comes from a decrease in its positive charge caused by the addition of negative heat particles, then you are still proposing that the charge of matter must change when it is heated up (i.e. its charge becomes increasingly negative as its temperature rises).
As matter is heated its positive charge decreases and will melt and evaporate before its charge becomes negative.
If you pick up a book and drop it, the atoms in the book would release heat particles. However, you can pick it up and drop it again and again. As long as energy can be expended to lift the book against gravity, there is no limit to the amount of heat particles matter would have to release. Since matter does not have an infinite negative charge, this can therefore be safely ruled out.
When you pick up a book and drop it on collision atoms vibrate and some negative particles bonding the atoms together are released as heat. When atoms have settled down heat from the environment could replace the negative particles lost on collision.
-
Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.
"At the heart of science...most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas old and new" Carl Sagan, reply 47.
-
In my theory gravitational lensing is an electric interaction between negatively charged light particles and positively charged stars and galaxies. The color of stars is also described as an electric interaction between negative light particles and positive stars. Large stars slow down the speed of light more than small stars and appear bluer. Blue light in my theory travels slower than red light.
Gravitational lensing doesn't have anything to do with the way that the charge on the photon was measured. It was measured by the (lack) of interaction between photons and magnetic fields in space.
Light of different wavelengths travelling at different speeds is a prediction of some quantum gravity models as well. Too bad that has been all but falsified by existing observations: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/)
As matter is heated its positive charge decreases and will melt and evaporate before its charge becomes negative.
At what temperature does matter become negatively-charged, then?
When you pick up a book and drop it on collision atoms vibrate and some negative particles bonding the atoms together are released as heat. When atoms have settled down heat from the environment could replace the negative particles lost on collision.
Then consider a light bulb floating in a vacuum that is powered by a fluctuating magnetic field. When the light bulb glows, it releases heat into the vacuum and it's gone for good. There is nothing touching the light bulb and so there is no way to replenish the heat particles by absorbing them from other matter. This means that the matter in the light bulb would have to be capable of generating an unlimited amount of heat particles on its own.
-
Gravitational lensing doesn't have anything to do with the way that the charge on the photon was measured. It was measured by the (lack) of interaction between photons and magnetic fields in space.
In my theory negative light particles from stars bend by the positive charge of the sun.
Light of different wavelengths travelling at different speeds is a prediction of some quantum gravity models as well. Too bad that has been all but falsified by existing observations: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/
A link between weight and temperature, if exists, changes and disproves all aspects of physics (heat, mass, energy, forces, W=mg, E=mc2, exc) and so current physical models can't be used to falsify alternative explanations.
At what temperature does matter become negatively-charged, then?
A very hot plasma could be negatively charged ? A link between weight and temperature if exists requires completely different understanding of temperature.
There is nothing touching the light bulb and so there is no way to replenish the heat particles by absorbing them from other matter.
Maybe light and heat particles emitted by the light bulb could be replenished by absorption of different types of radiation travelling the vacuum (heat, light, radio, microwaves, exc).
-
In my theory negative light particles from stars bend by the positive charge of the sun.
Again, that has nothing to do with the link I posted. What was searched for was deflection of light by interaction with galactic magnetic fields. No deflections were observed. That means no charge.
A link between weight and temperature, if exists, changes and disproves all aspects of physics (heat, mass, energy, forces, W=mg, E=mc2, exc) and so current physical models can't be used to falsify alternative explanations.
Measuring speed does not require any physical model. All it requires is knowing the distance traveled and the time it took to travel. It's simply math.
A very hot plasma could be negatively charged ? A link between weight and temperature if exists requires completely different understanding of temperature.
At what temperature?
Maybe light and heat particles emitted by the light bulb could be replenished by absorption of different types of radiation travelling the vacuum (heat, light, radio, microwaves, exc).
It would be very easy to set the experiment up such that the heat output of the lightbulb would greatly exceed any background radiation entering the bulb. So the matter in the bulb still needs to make an unlimited amount of negative heat particles.
-
Again, that has nothing to do with the link I posted. What was searched for was deflection of light by interaction with galactic magnetic fields. No deflections were observed. That means no charge.
Maybe the prediction of the strength of the magnetic force is false ? Isn't the magnetic force based on Newtons (force) ?
It would be very easy to set the experiment up such that the heat output of the lightbulb would greatly exceed any background radiation entering the bulb. So the matter in the bulb still needs to make an unlimited amount of negative heat particles.
I think this is a good experiment. My theory predicts number of negative particles lost should equal number of negative particles gained (by conduction, convection and all types of radiation - not only heat). And if a link between weight and temperature exists a new kind of physics to count and calculate how many negative particles were lost and gained.
-
Maybe the prediction of the strength of the magnetic force is false ? Isn't the magnetic force based on Newtons (force) ?
Scientists know how to measure the strength of a magnetic field from its effects on other objects. They've had plenty of opportunity to research that in the lab. The strength of galactic magnetic fields is calculated by measuring the synchrotron radiation emitted by those galaxies. Since the energy levels of the synchrotron radiation is directly related to how the charged particles that created it behaves in a magnetic field, the field strength can be calculated from observations. Even small galaxies are tens of thousands of light-years across, so any light travelling through that galaxy would be under the influence of the galactic magnetic field for tens of thousands of years. If the light had any significant amount of charge, it would be strongly deflected by the field over all those millenia. Since no such deflection is observed, we know that light has no practical degree of charge.
Before you say anything about the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields having anything to do with a given model, please do keep in mind that we have data from experiments that tell us how they behave. We obviously have to know that information, otherwise we wouldn't be able to build particle accelerators where the relationship between magnetic field strength and charged particle behavior is critical for their functioning.
I think this is a good experiment. My theory predicts number of negative particles lost should equal number of negative particles gained (by conduction, convection and all types of radiation - not only heat).
That makes no sense, given that your model posits that a change in the number of heat particles is responsible for a change in temperature. If the total number of particles lost equals the number gained, then there should be no net change in temperature.
And if a link between weight and temperature exists a new kind of physics to count and calculate how many negative particles were lost and gained.
What does your model predict that the strength of electric charge should be on each particle?
-
Scientists know how to measure the strength of a magnetic field from its effects on other objects.
Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein. So is Einstein right ? Well, dark matter was introduced to account for stellar motions and dark energy was introduced to account for galactic recession. Maybe a similar story awaits the magnetic force and it behaves differently on large distances ? How can you be so sure you are right if you can't even tell if a link between weight and temperature exists ?
That makes no sense, given that your model posits that a change in the number of heat particles is responsible for a change in temperature. If the total number of particles lost equals the number gained, then there should be no net change in temperature.
Not if particles gained travel at different speeds to particles lost. A thermometer only responds to negative particles travelling at a certain range of speeds (heat) and will not respond to negative particles travelling at different speeds.
What does your model predict that the strength of electric charge should be on each particle?
My theory provides qualitative predictions - not quantitative predictions.
-
Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein.
Einstein's discoveries did not invalidate the measurements taken of acceleration due to Earth's gravity before he was born. Newton's equations still work very well at the conditions of Earth's relatively weak gravity. Likewise, the magnetic fields of galaxies are actually on the weak side (weaker than the Earth's own field). Scientists have experimented with field strengths much, much stronger than that, so they know how such fields should behave.
So is Einstein right ? Well, dark matter was introduced to account for stellar motions and dark energy was introduced to account for galactic recession.
Dark matter and galactic recession do not invalidate Einstein's equations.
Maybe a similar story awaits the magnetic force and it behaves differently on large distances ?
If such a thing was true, scientists would be able to tell. They would see anomalous magnetic behavior from galaxies that correlated with their size and distance from the Earth. There should be anomalous changes in the measured energies of synchrotron radiation far from a galaxy's center versus close to its center.
How can you be so sure you are right if you can't even tell if a link between weight and temperature exists ?
A link between weight and temperature as you propose it violates our observations.
Not if particles gained travel at different speeds to particles lost. A thermometer only responds to negative particles travelling at a certain range of speeds (heat) and will not respond to negative particles travelling at different speeds.
Which wouldn't work for the "light bulb floating in a vacuum" scenario, since the vacuum of space contains far less heat and radiant energy than the light bulb would give off.
My theory provides qualitative predictions - not quantitative predictions.
Which are falsified by the fact that no observations support the idea of light having a negative charge.
-
Einstein's discoveries did not invalidate the measurements taken of acceleration due to Earth's gravity before he was born. Newton's equations still work very well at the conditions of Earth's relatively weak gravity. Likewise, the magnetic fields of galaxies are actually on the weak side (weaker than the Earth's own field). Scientists have experimented with field strengths much, much stronger than that, so they know how such fields should behave.
A link between weight and temperature disproves F=ma and all mathematical physics based on this equation and requires re-evaluation of all forces and theories.
Dark matter and galactic recession do not invalidate Einstein's equations.
But a link between weight and temperature does.
If such a thing was true, scientists would be able to tell. They would see anomalous magnetic behavior from galaxies that correlated with their size and distance from the Earth. There should be anomalous changes in the measured energies of synchrotron radiation far from a galaxy's center versus close to its center.
I did not imply a correlation between magnetic field and galactic recession. The comparison with gravity was an analogy to how new discoveries change our perception of nature.
A link between weight and temperature as you propose it violates our observations.
Maybe. So do you propose to forget the experiment to test your theory ?
Which wouldn't work for the "light bulb floating in a vacuum" scenario, since the vacuum of space contains far less heat and radiant energy than the light bulb would give off.
But it would need a really long antenna, would't it ?
Which are falsified by the fact that no observations support the idea of light having a negative charge.
Could a link between weight and temperature be the first observation to support light/heat having a negative charge ?
You come up with all the reasons you can think of to avoid doing an experiment to test your theory. Even if my theory is wrong this experiment should be carried out to test if your physics is wrong. Why are you not interested to test your theory ? Are you afraid to discover you are wrong ?
-
Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein.
Bad choice of example.
Einstein pondered what would happen if the speed of light was constant for all observers and deduced that the outcomes would be novel physics.
It's important to realise that Einstein did that because the known origin of the speed of light- Maxwell's equations- showed that C should be constant.
There was a sensible reasonable theoretical basis (in those equations- which had already been tested and shown to work) for making the supposition on which Einstein based his deductions.
On the other hand, you are basing your ideas on nothing - you just dreamed them up.
Ther are already contradicted by known observations.
Lets me clear about this
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK
Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.
And yet you complain that nobody will waste the time and effort to show what we already know. The predictions, based on stuff that's wrong, will be wrong.
Do you really not see the irony in this
"At the heart of science...most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas old and new" Carl Sagan, reply 47.
You have absolutely refused to accept that anyone should be sceptical about your idea.
You contend that, even though sound observational science shows that your postulate is wrong, the scientific world should waste money testing it.
And you seem not to understand that the scientific world, having seen that your idea is both theoretically nonsense and observedly false, refuses to play along.
Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.
-
Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and so should not affect satellites. If you had read my theory you would have known that.
-
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK
But we don't have the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
-
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK
But we don't have the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
We have, as has been pointed out, the results of experiments and observations that show that your idea doesn't work.
Since the basis of your claim is false, we know it's not worth investigating the claim itself.
It's like saying "Because polar bears are black we can hide them in front of piles of coal."
We don't need to get the bears and coal and do the experiment to know that it won't work.
We know that hot things are not charged so we know that your ideas are wrong, so we don't need to do anything else to test your ideas.
Where is your equivalent of Maxwell's equations?
Since you think the # symbol helps you remember things
#WeHaveAlreadyPointedOutTheFactThatYourIdeasDon'tWork
#ItIsYourJobToProvideResultsOrAReasonableExplanationOfWhyYouThinkItWouldWork
i#ItIsNotTheJobOfScienceToInvestigateEveryClaimThatSomeGuyMakesOnTheInternet
-
Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and so should not affect satellites. If you had read my theory you would have known that.
You do not have a theory.
At best, you have a hypothesis.
Stop mislabelling it; it makes you look dishonest.
-
#conspiracyofscience
-
#conspiracyofscience
Already dismissed as an idea.
I guess you can call it a conspiracy; Science doesn't let in any old idea. They conspire (if you want to call it that) to only let ideas in that are backed up by sound reasoning or clear experimental data.
That's why your ideas isn't being taken seriously.
-
#conspiracyofscience
#deludedconspiracytheorist
-
A link between weight and temperature disproves F=ma
You haven't demonstrated a link between weight and temperature, so you haven't disproved anything. All you have done is speculate.
and all mathematical physics based on this equation and requires re-evaluation of all forces and theories.
Given that F=ma has been well-substantiated by experiment, I'd say no.
But a link between weight and temperature does.
There is no evidence in support of such a link.
I did not imply a correlation between magnetic field and galactic recession.
Nor did I say that you did.
The comparison with gravity was an analogy to how new discoveries change our perception of nature.
New discoveries don't change the results of past experiments and observations.
Maybe. So do you propose to forget the experiment to test your theory ?
I don't have a theory.
But it would need a really long antenna, would't it ?
Not necessarily. Here's a demonstration of wireless power transfer using a resonant inductive coupling: .
Could a link between weight and temperature be the first observation to support light/heat having a negative charge ?
There are no observations of a link between weight and temperature. There is only your speculation.
Here's another way we know that light has no charge: we know that magnetic fields do not have any negative charge. If they did, then positively-charged particles would be attracted to magnetic fields while negatively-charged particles would be repelled by them. In reality, a stationary electric charge is not affected by a magnetic field. A moving electric charge is deflected by a magnetic field such that it will travel in circles around the magnetic field lines (circling in different directions for different charges). That is, however, not attraction or repulsion.
It is also known that a changing magnetic field results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Light, of course, is just one set of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Since magnetic fields are not negatively-charged, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the field also cannot be negatively-charged. If it was, that would mean that negative charged popped up out of nowhere and thus conservation of electric charge has been violated.
You come up with all the reasons you can think of to avoid doing an experiment to test your theory.
Again, I don't have a theory. This is existing scientific knowledge I'm talking about. I also don't have any means to do any high precision experiments. Besides, I kind of doubt you'd take my word for it if I did do the experiment and reported that you were wrong.
Even if my theory is wrong this experiment should be carried out to test if your physics is wrong.
Experiments already exist to test modern theories.
Why are you not interested to test your theory ?
Again I have no theory. Modern scientific theories like relativity have been validated by a myriad of tests already, like the orbital decay rate of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system, time dilation experiments (both gravitational and velocity), gravitational wave detection by LIGO, the perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun, and the observation of the geodetic effect and frame dragging by Gravity Probe B.
Are you afraid to discover you are wrong ?
About as much as I'm afraid to discover that the Earth is flat.
Your model proposes that atoms have a net positive charge, but consider hydrogen atoms. The protium isotope of hydrogen atoms is composed of solely of one proton and one electron, so the net charge on such an atom would be the difference between the values of charge on those two particles. Past experiments have observed that, if there is a difference in charge between the proton and electron, it must be smaller in magnitude than 3.6 x 10-19 times the charge on an electron. So if hydrogen atoms have a net positive charge, it cannot be any greater than that value (making it less than 36 million million million times smaller than the charge on a single electron). It may as well not have any charge at all on such a minute scale.
-
You haven't demonstrated a link between weight and temperature, so you haven't disproved anything. All you have done is speculate.
I didn't get support from the scientific community to conclude the experiment. Only obstructions.
Given that F=ma has been well-substantiated by experiment, I'd say no.
But not substantiated by the ultimate experiment.
There is no evidence in support of such a link.
Glaser shows weight decreases at increasing temperature in air. In vacuum ?
Dmitriev also found a link between weight and temperature. But you don't believe it.
New discoveries don't change the results of past experiments and observations.
New discoveries change explanations of past observations.
Not necessarily. Here's a demonstration of wireless power transfer using a resonant inductive coupling:
My theory predicts negative particles (light, heat exc) radiated by the bulb should be replaced by negative particles from the environment.
There are no observations of a link between weight and temperature. There is only your speculation.
Glaser, Dmitriev and my theory.
Here's another way we know that light has no charge: we know that magnetic fields do not have any negative charge. If they did, then positively-charged particles would be attracted to magnetic fields while negatively-charged particles would be repelled by them. In reality, a stationary electric charge is not affected by a magnetic field. A moving electric charge is deflected by a magnetic field such that it will travel in circles around the magnetic field lines (circling in different directions for different charges). That is, however, not attraction or repulsion.
It is also known that a changing magnetic field results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Light, of course, is just one set of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Since magnetic fields are not negatively-charged, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the field also cannot be negatively-charged. If it was, that would mean that negative charged popped up out of nowhere and thus conservation of electric charge has been violated.
In my theory negative light particles travel too fast to be deflected by magnetic fields in laboratory experiments.
Again, I don't have a theory. This is existing scientific knowledge I'm talking about.
Rephrase. Are you not interested to test existing scientific knowledge ?
Experiments already exist to test modern theories.
My experiment is also designed to test modern theories.
Again I have no theory. Modern scientific theories like relativity have been validated by a myriad of tests already, like the orbital decay rate of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system, time dilation experiments (both gravitational and velocity), gravitational wave detection by LIGO, the perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun, and the observation of the geodetic effect and frame dragging by Gravity Probe B.
Relativity should also be tested by the ultimate experiment.
Your model proposes that atoms have a net positive charge, but consider hydrogen atoms. The protium isotope of hydrogen atoms is composed of solely of one proton and one electron, so the net charge on such an atom would be the difference between the values of charge on those two particles. Past experiments have observed that, if there is a difference in charge between the proton and electron, it must be smaller in magnitude than 3.6 x 10-19 times the charge on an electron. So if hydrogen atoms have a net positive charge, it cannot be any greater than that value (making it less than 36 million million million times smaller than the charge on a single electron). It may as well not have any charge at all on such a minute scale.
You are using mathematical physics to explain diverse physical observations. A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
-
[A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
No it doesn’t. At best it would show a link between mass and temperature.
@Kryptid has given you many experimental results, consistently tested, that show your theory is incorrect. You need to study enough to understand why before you go any further.
The relationship between force, mass and acceleration are tested regularly in labs, spacecraft, etc, no one is going to publish the results because they are always as expected ie no surprise.
-
[A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
No it doesn’t. At best it would show a link between mass and temperature.
@Kryptid has given you many experimental results, consistently tested, that show your theory is incorrect. You need to study enough to understand why before you go any further.
The relationship between force, mass and acceleration are tested regularly in labs, spacecraft, etc, no one is going to publish the results because they are always as expected ie no surprise.
F=ma is like W=mg.
m is a constant.
g is a constant (under conditions of the experiment).
A reduction in W at increasing temperature implies a reduction in m or a reduction in g.
My theory predicts (and physics) hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate so g remains a constant.
So a reduction in W is a reduction in m.
#ResultsRequired
-
My theory predicts (and physics) hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate so g remains a constant.
So a reduction in W is a reduction in m.
#ResultsRequired
Then provide the results.
I don’t intend to waste time on someone who can’t be bothered to look at the experimental evidence as provided by @Kryptid and understand why it disproves your theory.
I’m out.
-
Then provide the results.
I don’t intend to waste time on someone who can’t be bothered to look at the experimental evidence as provided by @Kryptid and understand why it disproves your theory.
I’m out.
I understand why you can't be bothered to look at the experimental evidence to disprove conservation of mass.
-
Then provide the results.
I don’t intend to waste time on someone who can’t be bothered to look at the experimental evidence as provided by @Kryptid and understand why it disproves your theory.
I’m out.
I understand why you can't be bothered to look at the experimental evidence to disprove conservation of mass.
Show us some.
-
I didn't get support from the scientific community to conclude the experiment. Only obstructions.
There is no good reason to believe that the experiment should find anything and as such there's no reason to suspect anything of interest showing up in the experiment.
But not substantiated by the ultimate experiment.
Your proposed experiment is not the "ultimate" experiment. The "ultimate" experiment would to test the equation directly to see if a given mass with a given acceleration exerts the expected amount of force. This is the kind of thing that is tested all the time in college physics classes. I remember in physics lab, we used to test the validity of equations all the time using experimental set-ups.
Glaser shows weight decreases at increasing temperature in air. In vacuum ?
Dmitriev also found a link between weight and temperature. But you don't believe it.
Do you have some references for that? Were their experiments independently confirmed by others?
New discoveries change explanations of past observations.
But not the results.
My theory predicts negative particles (light, heat exc) radiated by the bulb should be replaced by negative particles from the environment.
Explain how a vacuum can give negative particles to a light bulb that is isolated from other matter and radiation.
Glaser, Dmitriev and my theory.
Again, references?
In my theory negative light particles travel too fast to be deflected by magnetic fields in laboratory experiments.
That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said.
Rephrase. Are you not interested to test existing scientific knowledge ?
Sure, I'm interested in experimental tests of theories. It's being done constantly. So far, relativity has come out on top.
My experiment is also designed to test modern theories.
It's unnecessary and founded upon faulty premises.
Relativity should also be tested by the ultimate experiment.
What makes your experiment more "ultimate" than the others?
You are using mathematical physics to explain diverse physical observations. A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
A link between weight and temperature cannot violate conservation of charge, so my math is still very much valid. Heck, my magnetic field refutation didn't even involve math at all.
Here's another problem with your hypothesis: your proposed mechanism for what causes heat particles to move matter will not work. You say that atoms are positively charged and sit inside of positively-charged space which exerts a pressure on the atom from all sides. Then along comes a heat particle that makes one side of the atom slightly less positive than the other side. The first problem with that is that a heat particle cannot change the charge on just one side of an atom. Electrons are constantly moving around all sides of the atom, so any change in the charge of the electron will be distributed equally all around the atom as the electron moves. Even if you are proposing that only one side of the electron has a change in charge (which makes no sense, given that electrons don't have "sides"), then that still won't work because the electron would still be constantly moving around the atom, preventing any net polarization of the atom from occurring.
The second problem is that an atom with lopsided charge still will not be moved by a surrounding positively-charged space. Essentially, you are proposing that space is a scalar field (one which has magnitude but not direction) and therefore has the same value at all locations. It isn't like a vector field, where there is a potential gradient that an object can move through to release potential energy. An atom with lopsided charge will be in just as stable of a configuration at one location in this scalar space field as it would be in another location. It can't reach a lower state of energy by moving and as such it does not move at all.
Another way of looking at it is by thinking about an electric dipole (say, a rod of glass that is positively-charged on one tip and negatively-charged on the other). You take this dipole and submerge it in a positively-charged fluid. Do you think that the tip repelling the fluid and the tip attracting the fluid will cause the dipole to move? Unfortunately, it won't. Although the dipole will experience a force pushing it in the direction of the negative pole (since the negative pole is attracted to the fluid and the positive pole is repelled from it), there is an equal and opposite force pulling the fluid itself towards the negative pole. The fluid will push against the dipole just as strongly as the dipole is pushed against the fluid. This results in no net movement.
It's like a car sitting on the ground. The pressure on the bottom of the tires is much higher than the pressure on the roof of the car. Does this mean that the car should suddenly be propelled upwards because the pressure on the bottom is greater than on the top? No, because it's being matched by another force that is pushing it down: gravity. In your model, an atom with lopsided charge will simply change the configuration of the scalar field around it such that it's slightly more dense at the less-positive side and slightly less dense at the more-positive side. That's it, though. That change in density won't cause it to move any more than the glass dipole would move in the charged fluid.
-
There is no good reason to believe that the experiment should find anything and as such there's no reason to suspect anything of interest showing up in the experiment.
Not good reason to believe is not good enough for an aspiring scientist like me.
Your proposed experiment is not the "ultimate" experiment. The "ultimate" experiment would to test the equation directly to see if a given mass with a given acceleration exerts the expected amount of force. This is the kind of thing that is tested all the time in college physics classes. I remember in physics lab, we used to test the validity of equations all the time using experimental set-ups.
Conservation of mass is the most fundamental axiom in physics. More fundamental than F=ma. Which makes my experiment more fundamental.
Do you have some references for that? Were their experiments independently confirmed by others?
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/.
I am not aware of other papers testing a link between weight and temperature.
New discoveries change explanations of past observations.
But not the results.
New discoveries could change the explanation given to past results.
Explain how a vacuum can give negative particles to a light bulb that is isolated from other matter and radiation.
Negative light particles radiated from the bulb could be replaced by radio particles from the transmitter ?
Sure, I'm interested in experimental tests of theories. It's being done constantly. So far, relativity has come out on top.
But yet to pass my experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
It's unnecessary and founded upon faulty premises.
In your opinion.
Here's another problem with your hypothesis: your proposed mechanism for what causes heat particles to move matter will not work. You say that atoms are positively charged and sit inside of positively-charged space which exerts a pressure on the atom from all sides. Then along comes a heat particle that makes one side of the atom slightly less positive than the other side. The first problem with that is that a heat particle cannot change the charge on just one side of an atom. Electrons are constantly moving around all sides of the atom, so any change in the charge of the electron will be distributed equally all around the atom as the electron moves. Even if you are proposing that only one side of the electron has a change in charge (which makes no sense, given that electrons don't have "sides"), then that still won't work because the electron would still be constantly moving around the atom, preventing any net polarization of the atom from occurring.
I don't understand this paragraph.
The second problem is that an atom with lopsided charge still will not be moved by a surrounding positively-charged space. Essentially, you are proposing that space is a scalar field (one which has magnitude but not direction) and therefore has the same value at all locations. It isn't like a vector field, where there is a potential gradient that an object can move through to release potential energy. An atom with lopsided charge will be in just as stable of a configuration at one location in this scalar space field as it would be in another location. It can't reach a lower state of energy by moving and as such it does not move at all.
Another way of looking at it is by thinking about an electric dipole (say, a rod of glass that is positively-charged on one tip and negatively-charged on the other). You take this dipole and submerge it in a positively-charged fluid. Do you think that the tip repelling the fluid and the tip attracting the fluid will cause the dipole to move? Unfortunately, it won't. Although the dipole will experience a force pushing it in the direction of the negative pole (since the negative pole is attracted to the fluid and the positive pole is repelled from it), there is an equal and opposite force pulling the fluid itself towards the negative pole. The fluid will push against the dipole just as strongly as the dipole is pushed against the fluid. This results in no net movement.
I can think of an experiment. Place the rod inside a circular anode. My theory predicts the rod will move and settle negative pole in contact with the anode.
It's like a car sitting on the ground. The pressure on the bottom of the tires is much higher than the pressure on the roof of the car. Does this mean that the car should suddenly be propelled upwards because the pressure on the bottom is greater than on the top? No, because it's being matched by another force that is pushing it down: gravity. In your model, an atom with lopsided charge will simply change the configuration of the scalar field around it such that it's slightly more dense at the less-positive side and slightly less dense at the more-positive side. That's it, though. That change in density won't cause it to move any more than the glass dipole would move in the charged fluid.
I also don't understand relevance of this paragraph.
-
Not good reason to believe is not good enough for an aspiring scientist like me.
In a world where funds, time and access to technology are unlimited, I'd be all for everyone testing every notion that they want to. However, if you expect scientists to use their (expensive) equipment and valuable time to test your hypothesis, then you'd better be able to convince them that the experiment is worth the effort.
Conservation of mass is the most fundamental axiom in physics. More fundamental than F=ma. Which makes my experiment more fundamental.
Conservation of mass has already been thoroughly tested and has never once been found to be violated.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf
http://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/.
I am not aware of other papers testing a link between weight and temperature.
That first article is behind a paywall, so I cannot see the details. I'll have to read the other papers later when I have more time. However, if these experiments have not been replicated by others, then the results are questionable. I'll know more when I have done some reading there. If these experiments were conducted in an atmosphere, then it's possible that turbulent airflow from convection (due to the increased temperature of the body heating the air around it), could be a complicating factor for the measurements. Even if it did turn out to be correct, it could not possibly be based on your proposed mechanism, since your mechanism violates the laws of physics.
New discoveries could change the explanation given to past results.
And, like I said before, they can't actually change what the results were.
Negative light particles radiated from the bulb could be replaced by radio particles from the transmitter ?
The power is being sent in the form of a fluctuating magnetic field. If radio waves produced by that fluctuating field are negatively-charged, then that violates conservation of electric charge because magnetic fields are not charged.
But yet to pass my experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
There are literally an infinite number of potential experiments that have not been conducted, but that doesn't mean that we should say "Well, we've done dozens of intricate experiments to test relativity and it's passed them all, but there are still more experiments we could do so we might as well say that we don't know anything and put no confidence in relativity (or any other theory in the history of science).
In your opinion.
No, it's objectively true that it's founded upon faulty premises: your hypothesis violates both conservation of charge and conservation of mass, which have been repeatedly backed up by experiment again and again.
I don't understand this paragraph.
I also don't understand relevance of this paragraph.
Come to think of it, I may have misunderstood your diagram in reply #6. Just ignore that part.
I can think of an experiment. Place the rod inside a circular anode. My theory predicts the rod will move and settle negative pole in contact with the anode.
So does existing physics.
-
In a world where funds, time and access to technology are unlimited, I'd be all for everyone testing every notion that they want to. However, if you expect scientists to use their (expensive) equipment and valuable time to test your hypothesis, then you'd better be able to convince them that the experiment is worth the effort.
My experiment is as much about testing conservation of mass as about testing a prediction of my theory and could save money wasted on faulty theories.
Conservation of mass has already been thoroughly tested and has never once been found to be violated.
Conservation of mass has not been tested by my experiment.
That first article is behind a paywall, so I cannot see the details. I'll have to read the other papers later when I have more time. However, if these experiments have not been replicated by others, then the results are questionable. I'll know more when I have done some reading there. If these experiments were conducted in an atmosphere, then it's possible that turbulent airflow from convection (due to the increased temperature of the body heating the air around it), could be a complicating factor for the measurements. Even if it did turn out to be correct, it could not possibly be based on your proposed mechanism, since your mechanism violates the laws of physics.
Glaser claims air currents are responsible for reduction in weight but a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum is missing from his papers.
And, like I said before, they can't actually change what the results were.
Results remain but explanation of results could change.
Negative light particles radiated from the bulb could be replaced by radio particles from the transmitter ?
The power is being sent in the form of a fluctuating magnetic field. If radio waves produced by that fluctuating field are negatively-charged, then that violates conservation of electric charge because magnetic fields are not charged.
Could negative particles emitted from the transmitter replaced by negative particles from a battery or the ground ?
There are literally an infinite number of potential experiments that have not been conducted, but that doesn't mean that we should say "Well, we've done dozens of intricate experiments to test relativity and it's passed them all, but there are still more experiments we could do so we might as well say that we don't know anything and put no confidence in relativity (or any other theory in the history of science).
No other experiment is more fundamental and simple in concept than my experiment.
No, it's objectively true that it's founded upon faulty premises: your hypothesis violates both conservation of charge and conservation of mass, which have been repeatedly backed up by experiment again and again.
Conservation of mass has not passed my experiment. Could all of physics based on faulty premises ?
-
Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.
My experiment is as much about testing conservation of mass as about testing a prediction of my theory and could save money wasted on faulty theories.
Do you have the slightest idea how accurately the conservation of mass has already been tested?Could negative particles emitted from the transmitter replaced by negative particles from a battery or the ground ?
No
Conservation of mass has not passed my experiment. Could all of physics based on faulty premises ?
It has passe countless other tests- some of which can be done on a bigger scale, and to better precision that yours could.
It's possible that physics is based on faulty ground, but your experiment wouldn't tell us if it was.
-
My experiment is as much about testing conservation of mass as about testing a prediction of my theory and could save money wasted on faulty theories.
You could make the exact same argument about any proposed experiment.
Conservation of mass has not been tested by my experiment.
It hasn't passed a hypothetical infinite number of other potential experiments either. Does that mean we can't know that it's true until we've done an infinite number of different experiments?
Glaser claims air currents are responsible for reduction in weight but a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum is missing from his papers.
So he didn't do a control experiment? That's a no-no in science.
Results remain but explanation of results could change.
So I see we are going in circles here.
Could negative particles emitted from the transmitter replaced by negative particles from a battery or the ground ?
The light bulb is floating in space, so it's at least hundreds of miles above the ground. The transmitter isn't emitting negative particles. All it's "emitting" is a changing magnetic field (which cannot be negatively-charged). Even if the transmitter was somehow emitting heat particles, how is it going to replenish its supply of lost heat particles? The vast majority of the heat particles are being lost to space by the hot light bulb. The system has to run out of negative heat particles eventually.
No other experiment is more fundamental and simple in concept than my experiment.
Actually, dropping a weight in a vacuum and letting it hit a high-precision pressure plate would be a simpler experiment to test F=ma.
Conservation of mass has not passed my experiment. Could all of physics based on faulty premises ?
Like I said before, there are an infinite number of experiments that conservation of mass has not passed (just like there are an infinite number of experiments for the Earth's roundness that have not been passed).
According to the papers you linked, the basis for the "higher temperature equals lower mass" idea is that velocity itself is connected with lower mass (i.e. since hot materials have faster moving particles, their mass is proposed to decrease). I have just realized that there already is experimental equipment that has tested to see how velocity is connected with mass: particle accelerators. Particle accelerators accelerate particles to near the speed of light and have them collide with either other particles or a target material.
If mass decreased with increasing velocity, then these particles should weigh much less at relativistic velocities than they do at rest. This, in turn, would mean significantly less force than expected when they hit their targets and therefore a considerable anomaly in the aftermath of the collision. Given the extreme sensitivity of particle accelerator instruments, such a major deviation from predicted values would easily be picked up and send shockwaves through the physics community. The fact that accelerators have been running for many decades without a single report of anomalous particle weight loss solidly demonstrates that greater velocity does not correlate with reduced mass. There you go. An experimental falsification of this hypothesis.
-
So he didn't do a control experiment? That's a no-no in science.
Without a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum you can't tell if the air was responsible to the entire loss of weight.
The light bulb is floating in space, so it's at least hundreds of miles above the ground. The transmitter isn't emitting negative particles. All it's "emitting" is a changing magnetic field (which cannot be negatively-charged). Even if the transmitter was somehow emitting heat particles, how is it going to replenish its supply of lost heat particles? The vast majority of the heat particles are being lost to space by the hot light bulb. The system has to run out of negative heat particles eventually.
The transmitter generates alternating electric currents and every time current is accelerated negative radio particles are emitted and could be replaced by negative particles from a chemical or a nuclear battery or by negative light particles from a solar cell ?
Actually, dropping a weight in a vacuum and letting it hit a high-precision pressure plate would be a simpler experiment to test F=ma.
I think dropping a weight heated to different temperatures in vacuum onto a pressure plate is a good experiment.
According to the papers you linked, the basis for the "higher temperature equals lower mass" idea is that velocity itself is connected with lower mass (i.e. since hot materials have faster moving particles, their mass is proposed to decrease). I have just realized that there already is experimental equipment that has tested to see how velocity is connected with mass: particle accelerators. Particle accelerators accelerate particles to near the speed of light and have them collide with either other particles or a target material.
If mass decreased with increasing velocity, then these particles should weigh much less at relativistic velocities than they do at rest. This, in turn, would mean significantly less force than expected when they hit their targets and therefore a considerable anomaly in the aftermath of the collision. Given the extreme sensitivity of particle accelerator instruments, such a major deviation from predicted values would easily be picked up and send shockwaves through the physics community. The fact that accelerators have been running for many decades without a single report of anomalous particle weight loss solidly demonstrates that greater velocity does not correlate with reduced mass. There you go. An experimental falsification of this hypothesis.
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and a reduction in weight at increasing temperature is Not linked to velocity.
-
Without a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum you can't tell if the air was responsible to the entire loss of weight.
So we don't know the cause. That doesn't mean that temperature was what caused the weight decrease, it means that we literally don't know what caused it.
The transmitter generates alternating electric currents and every time current is accelerated negative radio particles are emitted and could be replaced by negative particles from a chemical or a nuclear battery or by negative light particles from a solar cell ?
Photons, be they radio wave photons or otherwise, cannot be negatively-charged. Electrons and positrons have equal and opposite charges and they can annihilate to create a pair of photons. Since the sum of charge on the electron and positron is zero, the resulting photons must also have zero charge.
I think dropping a weight heated to different temperatures in vacuum onto a pressure plate is a good experiment.
My experiment doesn't require different temperatures, so it's simpler. It would be awfully convenient if F=ma at room temperature but not at 10 degrees above or below room temperature, don't you think? Why should the Universe think there is anything particularly special about room temperature as defined by humans?
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and a reduction in weight at increasing temperature is Not linked to velocity.
You do realize that the very thing that makes one object hotter than another is the kinetic energy contained in (and accordingly the velocity of) its component particles, right? Does that mean that you think Dmitriev's experiment showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing temperature was valid but his experiments showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing velocity was not?
-
Does that mean that you think Dmitriev's experiment showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing temperature was valid but his experiments showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing velocity was not?
I now realize Dmitriev peculiar method of heating is not like normal heating and is complicating my argument. Thanks. In my theory temperature is not related to velocity.
So we don't know the cause. That doesn't mean that temperature was what caused the weight decrease, it means that we literally don't know what caused it.
That doesn't mean temperature is responsible for a reduction in weight but this should be tested and my theory predicts weight reduction at increasing temperature.
Photons, be they radio wave photons or otherwise, cannot be negatively-charged.
A simple direct current circuit showing three light bulbs in series (video below). The first bulb is the brightest and the third bulb is the dimmest. In my theory a fraction of electrons are lost as negative light particle in each bulb explaining reduced brightness. How sequential dimming of bulbs is explained by physics ?
Electrons and positrons have equal and opposite charges and they can annihilate to create a pair of photons. Since the sum of charge on the electron and positron is zero, the resulting photons must also have zero charge.
Not in my physics.
My experiment doesn't require different temperatures, so it's simpler. It would be awfully convenient if F=ma at room temperature but not at 10 degrees above or below room temperature, don't you think? Why should the Universe think there is anything particularly special about room temperature as defined by humans?
My theory predicts a cold object should register higher pressure than when heated. Heat only the object and keep room temperature normal.
You do realize that the very thing that makes one object hotter than another is the kinetic energy contained in (and accordingly the velocity of) its component particles, right?
I don't think so. Particles in solids have fixed positions and particles in liquids move around. If temperature was a measure of velocity the temperature at the beginning of the melting process (solid) should be significantly lower than temperature at the end of the melting process (liquid). A typical graph showing temperature remains constant during the melting process.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.splung.com%2Fheat%2Fimages%2Flatentheat%2Fphasechange.png&hash=e7cb848d546a14c89f22cf24a16fc3d8)
-
I now realize Dmitriev peculiar method of heating is not like normal heating and is complicating my argument.
A piece of copper heated up by ultrasound is the same as a piece of copper heated up by conduction, radiation or any other method.
Thanks. In my theory temperature is not related to velocity.
When you start changing the definition of words, you can make anything mean anything.
That doesn't mean temperature is responsible for a reduction in weight but this should be tested and my theory predicts weight reduction at increasing temperature.
It's not necessary to test your hypothesis because it's already been falsified by existing data. I've shown via many different methods that photons cannot have any appreciable electric charge. Since your model requires light to be charged, your model has already been falsified.
A simple direct current circuit showing three light bulbs in series (video below). The first bulb is the brightest and the third bulb is the dimmest. In my theory a fraction of electrons are lost as negative light particle in each bulb explaining reduced brightness.
Then your model is incompatible with reality because electrons can't turn into light particles. That would violate conservation laws. If it was possible to convert an electron into a photon, then that would automatically imply that the photon has just as strong of a negative charge as the electron it came from (due to conservation of charge). Since you can create a pair of photons from an electron-positron annihilation, that would mean that you somehow got twice as much negative charge out of the reaction as the electron supplied. That violates conservation of charge. It also violates conservation of lepton number since photons are not leptons.
How sequential dimming of bulbs is explained by physics ?
The first and second bulb look equally bright to me. I suspect there is something either wrong with the circuit or with the third bulb. I've seen other videos where all of the light bulbs in the series are equally bright, which supports the idea of the third bulb either being nearly burned out, having a damaged contact or some other problem:
Example 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0smFyRj4g (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0smFyRj4g)
Example 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LETOaC4ao-E (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LETOaC4ao-E)
Example 3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfAsAUyEws (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfAsAUyEws)
So it looks like you've just shot your model in the foot. Since your model predicts that light bulbs normally become sequentially dimmer on a series circuit whereas in reality they normally don't, then you've falsified your own model.
Not in my physics.
Then your physics is wrong. We know that positrons and electrons have the same magnitude of charge and we know that they can annihilate to produce gamma rays. If your model cannot accommodate those facts, then you either need to change your model or abandon it.
Actually, it turns out that an electron and positron annihilation can sometimes produce three photons instead of two. If a photon had any amount of electric charge at all, then three photons would have to have a different total charge than two photons. Since the starting particles (the positron and electron) are the same in either case, then the only possible charge value that a photon can have without violating charge conservation would be zero (two times zero is zero and three times zero is zero).
My theory predicts a cold object should register higher pressure than when heated. Heat only the object and keep room temperature normal.
Wait a minute... why are you saying that a change in mass of a heated object would have anything to do with falsifying F=ma? If the mass is different, then that would merely imply that it will yield a different force on impact with a given acceleration. That wouldn't make F=ma wrong.
I don't think so. Particles in solids have fixed positions and particles in liquids move around.
Particles in solids are not completely fixed: they can rotate and vibrate. The hotter the material is, the faster the particles rotate and vibrate. That's ultimately a manifestation of an increase in internal kinetic energy.
If temperature was a measure of velocity the temperature at the beginning of the melting process (solid) should be significantly lower than temperature at the end of the melting process (liquid).
The molecules in the liquid at the melting point and the molecules in the solid at the melting point are moving/vibrating/rotating at the same speed, but the molecules in the liquid are free to move around because the intermolecular bonds between the molecules in the solid have been broken by the extra added energy.
A typical graph showing temperature remains constant during the melting process.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.splung.com%2Fheat%2Fimages%2Flatentheat%2Fphasechange.png&hash=e7cb848d546a14c89f22cf24a16fc3d8)
Indeed it does, because the extra energy put into the solid in order to melt it at its melting point is used to break the bonds that hold the solid particles together in a lattice. Breaking the bonds requires energy.
-
A piece of copper heated up by ultrasound is the same as a piece of copper heated up by conduction, radiation or any other method.
I suspect Dmitriev method of heating is not the same as Glaser normal heating because Dmitriev recorded larger changes in weight (milligrams compared to micrograms).
It's not necessary to test your hypothesis because it's already been falsified by existing data. I've shown via many different methods that photons cannot have any appreciable electric charge. Since your model requires light to be charged, your model has already been falsified.
But it is necessary to test your physics.
Then your model is incompatible with reality because electrons can't turn into light particles. That would violate conservation laws. If it was possible to convert an electron into a photon, then that would automatically imply that the photon has just as strong of a negative charge as the electron it came from (due to conservation of charge). Since you can create a pair of photons from an electron-positron annihilation, that would mean that you somehow got twice as much negative charge out of the reaction as the electron supplied. That violates conservation of charge. It also violates conservation of lepton number since photons are not leptons.
Weight reduction at increasing temperature certainly violates at least one conservation law.
The first and second bulb look equally bright to me. I suspect there is something either wrong with the circuit or with the third bulb.
Here is another video showing first bulb brighter and second dimmer.
Wait a minute... why are you saying that a change in mass of a heated object would have anything to do with falsifying F=ma? If the mass is different, then that would merely imply that it will yield a different force on impact with a given acceleration. That wouldn't make F=ma wrong.
If you believe mass is conserved weight reduction at increasing temperature disproves F=ma.
The molecules in the liquid at the melting point and the molecules in the solid at the melting point are moving/vibrating/rotating at the same speed, but the molecules in the liquid are free to move around because the intermolecular bonds between the molecules in the solid have been broken by the extra added energy.
I think if temperature was a measure of motion the added free movement of molecules in liquids should have been registered as higher temperature.
-
I suspect Dmitriev method of heating is not the same as Glaser normal heating because Dmitriev recorded larger changes in weight (milligrams compared to micrograms).
Such a large discrepancy alone strongly suggests experimental error and therefore unreliable results. A piece of copper at, say, 30 degrees C isn't going to "know" how it got to that temperature. It's going to be physically identical regardless of the method of heating.
But it is necessary to test your physics.
You make it sound like it hasn't already been tested. It has. Many times. Particle accelerators do it all the time. Charge is always conserved.
Weight reduction at increasing temperature certainly violates at least one conservation law.
Ah, so we're finally in agreement about the violation of charge conservation. As if violating conservation of mass wasn't bad enough on its own. This is exactly why we can put your model to rest now.
Here is another video showing first bulb brighter and second dimmer.
He explained in the video why the second bulb was dimmer...
If you believe mass is conserved weight reduction at increasing temperature disproves F=ma.
How? Even if a block of copper at 100 degrees C weighed less than a block at 0 degrees C, why would that automatically mean that you couldn't calculate the force of impact of that copper block using F=ma by dropping it on a pressure plate? All it would mean is that the hot copper block should produce less force on impact than the cold one because it weighs less.
I think if temperature was a measure of motion the added free movement of molecules in liquids should have been registered as higher temperature.
Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy. That would be like saying that a gas in a 1 milliliter container can't be as hot as a gas in a 1 liter container because the gas molecules in the smaller container don't have as much freedom of movement as those in the large container.
-
Such a large discrepancy alone strongly suggests experimental error and therefore unreliable results. A piece of copper at, say, 30 degrees C isn't going to "know" how it got to that temperature. It's going to be physically identical regardless of the method of heating.
All this is no excuse not to conclude my experiment to test conservation of mass.
You make it sound like it hasn't already been tested. It has. Many times. Particle accelerators do it all the time. Charge is always conserved.
You are talking about different experiments to weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
He explained in the video why the second bulb was dimmer...
He says something about increasing resistance of the whole circuit. This should dim all light bulbs equally ?
How? Even if a block of copper at 100 degrees C weighed less than a block at 0 degrees C, why would that automatically mean that you couldn't calculate the force of impact of that copper block using F=ma by dropping it on a pressure plate? All it would mean is that the hot copper block should produce less force on impact than the cold one because it weighs less.
If you accept conservation of mass disproved then F=ma can be used to describe several macroscopic phenomena and any extensions to this equation based on conservation of mass falsified. In my theory the whole concept of mass is replaced with charge.
Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy. That would be like saying that a gas in a 1 milliliter container can't be as hot as a gas in a 1 liter container because the gas molecules in the smaller container don't have as much freedom of movement as those in the large container.
I don't really understand relevance of this paragraph.
-
The first and second bulb look equally bright to me. I suspect there is something either wrong with the circuit or with the third bulb. I've seen other videos where all of the light bulbs in the series are equally bright, which supports the idea of the third bulb either being nearly burned out, having a damaged contact or some other problem:
Example 1: Example 2: Example 3:
So it looks like you've just shot your model in the foot. Since your model predicts that light bulbs normally become sequentially dimmer on a series circuit whereas in reality they normally don't, then you've falsified your own model.
A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable. Even if this prediction of my theory is wrong, weighing a heated metal in vacuum should be completed to test conservation of mass and open the way to new theories. #ResultsRequired
-
All this is no excuse not to conclude my experiment to test conservation of mass.
(1) It's already been tested over and over for many decades and never once been found to fail.
(2) There is no reason to believe that your proposed experiment will change that notion. Some uncontrolled, unreplicated results from a couple of other people whose results are inconsistent with each other is not a good reason to believe that conservation of mass fails. It's rather like the claims of people who say that they have built successful perpetual motion machines.
You are talking about different experiments to weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
Let's be clear about something here: the existence of weight reduction in heated metal would not be confirmation of the accuracy of your model. Your model violates the laws of physics, whereas hot metal weighing less would not necessarily do so. It's possible, for example, that the weight loss could be due to the existence of another force that opposes gravity instead of the actual mass of the metal becoming less. Although that would make the metal weigh less, it would not make the metal have less mass.
He says something about increasing resistance of the whole circuit. This should dim all light bulbs equally ?
Nope. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzQYpTK_FXo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzQYpTK_FXo)
If you accept conservation of mass disproved then F=ma can be used to describe several macroscopic phenomena and any extensions to this equation based on conservation of mass falsified.
F=ma is not based on conservation of mass.
In my theory the whole concept of mass is replaced with charge.
Protons are almost 2,000 times as heavy as electrons even though they have the same magnitude of charge. Neutrinos and Z-bosons have mass but no charge (with the Z-boson being much heavier than even a proton). There is no correlation between charge and mass.
I don't really understand relevance of this paragraph.
I'm saying that temperature does not automatically increase because molecules have extra room to move.
A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.
Complete speculation.
Even if this prediction of my theory is wrong, weighing a heated metal in vacuum should be completed to test conservation of mass and open the way to new theories. #ResultsRequired
Then we should test to make sure that mass is conserved on all of the planets, then make sure it's conserved every minute of the year, then make sure it's conserved in all cells of every animal, then make sure it's conserved when those animals are in different emotional states, then make sure it's conserved when it's raining outside, then make sure it's conserved in the Earth's core, ad infinitum...
-
Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ?
Just spotted the irony of this.
Scientists do actually know how to measure gravity- they use a gravimeter.
Essentially it works by very carefully weighing a bit of metal, in a carefully thermostated box.
Perhaps you should try to find a second and one + tweak the temperature control.
-
(1) It's already been tested over and over for many decades and never once been found to fail.
There results of my experiment are not in the literature.
(2) There is no reason to believe that your proposed experiment will change that notion. Some uncontrolled, unreplicated results from a couple of other people whose results are inconsistent with each other is not a good reason to believe that conservation of mass fails. It's rather like the claims of people who say that they have built successful perpetual motion machines.
The fact only the results of these uncontrolled and unreplicated experiments appear in the literature makes me suspicious a link between weight and temperature could actually exist.
It's possible, for example, that the weight loss could be due to the existence of another force that opposes gravity instead of the actual mass of the metal becoming less. Although that would make the metal weigh less, it would not make the metal have less mass.
Absolutely true. The first stage is to test if such a link really exists and second to come with all possible explanations and eliminate them one by one through experiments.
I'm saying that temperature does not automatically increase because molecules have extra room to move.
But in liquids they are still very close together.
Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy.
Molecules in liquids seem to me to have more average kinetic energy than molecules in solids.
A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.
Complete speculation.
To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode. I have seen videos on Youtube showing current remains the same in all locations but not sure about the precision of the measurements. This is an important prediction that could falsify my theory. Therefore I would like to see experiments repeated at highest precision measurable to test if more electrons entering than leaving the circuit or if exactly equal number of electrons entering as leaving the circuit which would falsify my theory.
-
There results of my experiment are not in the literature.
Of course not. They don't have to be. There are literally an infinite number of experiments that do not have results published in literature. It's like complaining that such-and-such an experiment hasn't yet been done to test the Earth's roundness. It isn't necessary.
The fact only the results of these uncontrolled and unreplicated experiments appear in the literature makes me suspicious a link between weight and temperature could actually exist.
A lot of people suspect a lot of things. Doesn't mean there's merit to it.
Absolutely true. The first stage is to test if such a link really exists and second to come with all possible explanations and eliminate them one by one through experiments.
If you can find someone who has the ability and willingness to do your experiment, be my guest. We have good reason to believe that such a thing doesn't happen though, like the particle accelerator thing I mentioned.
But in liquids they are still very close together.
It ultimately doesn't matter. If the molecules of the same substance in liquid form have the same kinetic energy as those in the solid, then it's the same temperature. Their distances apart don't matter.
Molecules in liquids seem to me to have more average kinetic energy than molecules in solids.
I don't know what this sentence means.
To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode. I have seen videos on Youtube showing current remains the same in all locations but not sure about the precision of the measurements. This is an important prediction that could falsify my theory. Therefore I would like to see experiments repeated at highest precision measurable to test if more electrons entering than leaving the circuit or if exactly equal number of electrons entering as leaving the circuit which would falsify my theory.
Your model has already been falsified because it violates at least three conservation laws. The circuit thing is just redundant.
-
Of course not. They don't have to be. There are literally an infinite number of experiments that do not have results published in literature. It's like complaining that such-and-such an experiment hasn't yet been done to test the Earth's roundness. It isn't necessary.
My experiment should appear in the literature.
If you can find someone who has the ability and willingness to do your experiment, be my guest. We have good reason to believe that such a thing doesn't happen though, like the particle accelerator thing I mentioned.
I understand why you are not interested to conclude the experiment.
It ultimately doesn't matter. If the molecules of the same substance in liquid form have the same kinetic energy as those in the solid, then it's the same temperature. Their distances apart don't matter.
Molecules in solids can vibrate and rotate but molecules in liquids also move around. Only a physicist can claim molecules in liquids and solids are moving at the same speed.
Your model has already been falsified because it violates at least three conservation laws. The circuit thing is just redundant.
You are afraid to test conservation laws. The circuit thing is an important experiment to me.
-
You are afraid to test conservation laws.
Nope, I know they work.
It's been proven.
Were you aware of that?
I don't mean they have been tested a lot and nobody has found a problem; I mean the conservation laws are a proven mathematical truth.
They can only be wrong if you can show the error in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
So, if your idea suggests that the conservation laws are not followed, then we know your idea is wrong- without needing any experiment.
Incidentally, you are also known to be wrong about electrical current into and out of something- where you say "To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws
And you still haven't grasped the fact that your notion isn't a theory; why is that, is it some sort of delusion of grandeur?
-
My experiment should appear in the literature.
Which is an opinion.
I understand why you are not interested to conclude the experiment.
I wouldn't mind it being done. I just think it's unlikely to show anything anomalous and as such shouldn't be something that scientists should be put in the hot seat to get done. They have more important things to do.
Molecules in solids can vibrate and rotate but molecules in liquids also move around.
That doesn't automatically make one hotter than the other.
Only a physicist can claim molecules in liquids and solids are moving at the same speed.
Well, of course. Scientific knowledge ultimately comes from scientists doing science...
You are afraid to test conservation laws. The circuit thing is an important experiment to me.
Not any more than I am afraid to test the Earth's roundness.
-
I wouldn't mind it being done. I just think it's unlikely to show anything anomalous and as such shouldn't be something that scientists should be put in the hot seat to get done. They have more important things to do.
Unlikely is not conclusive.
You are afraid to test conservation laws.
Nope, I know they work.
It's been proven.
Were you aware of that?
Conservation laws are rules introduced to simplify nature and should be subjected to experimental tests like all other scientific theories.
-
Conservation laws are rules introduced to simplify nature and should be subjected to experimental tests like all other scientific theories.
No, conservation laws are a consequence of observed symmetries in the universe.
Thy are mathematically proven and do not need to be tested.
But thanks for proving that you don't understand the issue.
Unlikely is not conclusive.
Mathematical proof is conclusive.
-
Mathematical proof is conclusive.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second (in part because I don't understand why Noether's theorem implies conservation laws), let's say we have a hypothetical science establishment that believes that atoms are fundamental, indivisible particles whose number is always conserved (conservation of atomicity). They are not aware of nuclear reactions or anything that demonstrates atoms are not fundamental. If that same science group was aware of Noether's theorem, would they conclude that Noether's theorem proves that atomicity is always conserved? If not, why not?
-
Mathematical proof is conclusive.
What if mathematics disagrees with results of experiments ?
-
Mathematical proof is conclusive.
Just to play devil's advocate for a second (in part because I don't understand why Noether's theorem implies conservation laws), let's say we have a hypothetical science establishment that believes that atoms are fundamental, indivisible particles whose number is always conserved (conservation of atomicity). They are not aware of nuclear reactions or anything that demonstrates atoms are not fundamental. If that same science group was aware of Noether's theorem, would they conclude that Noether's theorem proves that atomicity is always conserved? If not, why not?
You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
-
You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Alright, I'll look into that. It's an interesting concept and I feel it's an important thing for me to try to understand.
-
You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Alright, I'll look into that. It's an interesting concept and I feel it's an important thing for me to try to understand.
I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.
-
I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.
If your mathematics disagrees with nature you need to change your mathematics. #ResultsRequired
-
I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.
If your mathematics disagrees with nature you need to change your mathematics. #ResultsRequired
That's a mighty big "if".
Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.
Your suggestions don't agree.
#RethinkRequired
-
Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.
#ResultsRequired
-
Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.
#ResultsRequired
Every single observation ever made has agreed with the conservation laws.
Is that really not enough data for you?
What would it take?
-
Every single observation ever made has agreed with the conservation laws.
Is that really not enough data for you?
What would it take?
An experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
-
You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?
-
You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?
To test conservation laws.
-
You don't seem to get it.
If your ideas either predict, or depend on a breach of the conservation laws then we know that your ideas are wrong- we don't need to do that particular experiment.
Why would we waste time on it?
To test conservation laws.
And, just to go round in circles again because you don't understand it.
We don't need to test them; they are mathematically true.
Also, we have already tested them.
We know they work- to an exceptional degree of precision. No experiment has ever shown any deviation from them.
What would you proposed test add?
All it would do would be to prove something that we already know; it would prove that you are wrong.
-
What would you proposed test add?
Falsifying conservation of mass.
-
What would you proposed test add?
Falsifying conservation of mass.
So, the only purpose would be to (fail to) falsify the conservation of mass.
(As you repeatedly fail to accept, we know CoM is true for two reasons; the mathematical proof, and the countless observations)
Can you see why nobody wants to waste time and effort on that- especially when there are worthwhile things to do instead?
Or do you somehow think that you are so important that your opinion should hold sway over logic and experiment?
-
So, the only purpose would be to (fail to) falsify the conservation of mass.
You can't tell for sure without the results of the experiment.
Or do you somehow think that you are so important that your opinion should hold sway over logic and experiment?
I think I am the only person here adhering to logic and experiment. #ResultsRequired
-
If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.
Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?
In an absolutely strict sense, the answer is yes.
That's the sense in which we "need" to do your experiment
Good luck getting the funding.
-
If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.
Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?
This stupid analogy suggests there are countless of experiments in the literature showing weight does not change at increasing temperature.
-
If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floor
If I drop a five pound weight, it falls on the floor.
All the records of dropping weights show that they fall on the floor.
Do I really need to do the experiment to show that a 7 pound weight will fall on the floor?
This stupid analogy suggests there are countless of experiments in the literature showing weight does not change at increasing temperature.
There are countless experiments in the literature that show the conservation of mass.
If your ideas say that the mass changes with temperature then demonstration CoM is the same as demonstrating that your idea is wrong.
I presume you are working on the mathematical refutation of Noether's theorem.
That will be interesting; If maths did Nobel prizes you would be in line for one if you could show she's wrong.
(Spoiler alert- you won't)
-
There are countless experiments in the literature that show the conservation of mass.
I don't know which experiments you are talking about.
If your ideas say that the mass changes with temperature then demonstration CoM is the same as demonstrating that your idea is wrong.
Mathematics isn't physics. If you don't believe me you may believe Richard Feynmann.
Your claim the experiment should not be carried out because your mathematics predicts the results of the experiment is ridiculous. The experiment should be carried out precisely to test your mathematical predictions.
I presume you are working on the mathematical refutation of Noether's theorem.
That will be interesting; If maths did Nobel prizes you would be in line for one if you could show she's wrong.
(Spoiler alert- you won't)
If Noether's theorem has anything to say about conservation of mass I will be happy to collect The Fields Medal in mathematics, too.
-
I don't know which experiments you are talking about.
It shows.
If Noether's theorem has anything to say about conservation of mass I will be happy to collect The Fields Medal in mathematics, too.
It has; you won't.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/2690/what-is-the-symmetry-which-is-responsible-for-conservation-of-mass
For what it's worth, you misunderstood Feynman too.
The experiment has been done many times (though, as you say, you don't understand this) and the maths predicts that the result will be the same as last time if you do your experiment- mass will still be conserved.
-
It's not necessary to test your hypothesis because it's already been falsified by existing data. I've shown via many different methods that photons cannot have any appreciable electric charge. Since your model requires light to be charged, your model has already been falsified.
I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.
https://www.edn.com/electronics-news/4199337/Transistor-laser-Kirchhoff
In my theory some electrons are lost as negative infrared particles.
Precision current measurements are required to test if this phenomenon extends to other light/heat emitting devices.
-
I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.
The article is seriously misleading and looks like a poor headline attention-grabber. If you use Kirchoff’s correctly there is no problem, we have used this analysis for years with leds and laser junction devices.
I think you need to learn more physics so you are not misled by the poor quality of the pop press who don't have time for full explanations.
In my theory some electrons are lost as negative infrared particles.
Precision current measurements are required to test if this phenomenon extends to other light/heat emitting devices.
Then you need to raise money to test your theory, it shouldn’t be too expensive and the rewards would be great. Why let others take all the credit and monetary rewards, if you do you will be penniless and unknown.
PS there are no such thing as negative infrared particles, or positive ones for that matter. You will need to prove their existence and show how they might be detected.
-
If you use Kirchoff’s correctly there is no problem
The problem here some of the current is converted to infrared radiation.
we have used this analysis for years with leds and laser junction devices.
I don't know if loss of current is also found in leds and other devices.
If it does it may be small enough to ignore for practical purposes.
Prof Holonyak said "The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals but until now its been dismissed in a transistor".
I can't tell if this sentence means current anomalies are found and ignored or not found at all in other transistors.
-
The problem here some of the current is converted to infrared radiation.
That isn’t a problem. You just account for it with a current sink.
"The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals but until now its been dismissed in a transistor".
IR and optical output from transistor junctions has been observed and accounted for for a long time and has not required a rewriting of textbooks. The article you quote was written in 2010 and has rewritten nothing.
This is a red herring for you. Unless you can show IR from a mass (above and beyond that which is known to occur due to heating) and resulting in a loss of mass, you are on a loser.
You also have a long way to go to demonstrate the existence of what you call ‘negative IR particles’ and show how you have detected them. Demonstrate that and you will get the prize.
Stop wasting your time and get fundraising otherwise someone else will beat you to that Nobel Prize.
-
That isn’t a problem. You just account for it with a current sink.
IR and optical output from transistor junctions has been observed and accounted for for a long time and has not required a rewriting of textbooks.
It's not a problem for practical applications but is a problem for the theory.
Unless you can show IR from a mass (above and beyond that which is known to occur due to heating) and resulting in a loss of mass, you are on a loser.
Demonstrate that and you will get the prize.
Stop wasting your time and get fundraising otherwise someone else will beat you to that Nobel Prize.
I am happy for anybody who weighs a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results to get the Nobel Prize. My name will be remembered for theorizing this prediction.
-
... but is a problem for the theory.
Oh no it isn’t
My name will be remembered for theorizing this prediction.
Oh no it won’t
-
I read electric current entering a transistor laser is higher than electric current leaving the transistor. This observation contradicts law of conservation of charge and Kirchhoff's current law.
Current is not charge. You can send increasingly larger amounts of current through a wire, but that won't change the number of electrons in the wire. Don't confuse the amount of electrical energy in a wire for the amount of electric charge in the wire. There is no violation of conservation of charge here.
-
Current is not charge. You can send increasingly larger amounts of current through a wire, but that won't change the number of electrons in the wire. Don't confuse the amount of electrical energy in a wire for the amount of electric charge in the wire. There is no violation of conservation of charge here.
I = C / t (I current in ampere, C coulombs, t time).
1 ampere = 1 C (6 ^ 18 electrons moving through a conductor) per 1 second.
Higher current entering than exiting the laser transistor implies more electrons entered than exited the transistor.
In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.
-
I = C / t (I current in ampere, C coulombs, t time).
1 ampere = 1 C (6 ^ 18 electrons moving through a conductor) per 1 second.
Higher current entering than exiting the laser transistor implies more electrons entered than exited the transistor.
In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.
Given that this article is seven years old, I take it that you will be able to supply us with news of subsequent developments from reputable sources that substantiate the claims in the article? Violation of charge conservation would be a very big deal. If it was confirmed, this would have been all over the news.
-
In my theory current lost was radiated as negative infrared particles.
Can you show any evidence of the existence of these particles which exist in your hypothesis (it's still not a theory)?
If not, you are explaining something that doesn't happen in terms of something that doesn't exist- that's not science, it's gibberish.
-
Given that this article is seven years old, I take it that you will be able to supply us with news of subsequent developments from reputable sources that substantiate the claims in the article? Violation of charge conservation would be a very big deal. If it was confirmed, this would have been all over the news.
I have seen several papers discussing this current anomaly in transistor lasers and other transistors but I have not seen precision current measurements for other radiation-emitting devices. Is this another uncomfortable result suppressed in the literature ?
-
Is this another uncomfortable result suppressed in the literature ?
If you're going to cry "conspiracy", then you'd better get some good evidence that there is a conspiracy. We're not going to just take your word for it.
-
I... I have not seen precision current measurements for other radiation-emitting devices.
That's because we don't need to do them.
Any physical device has a finite capacitance and if electrons entered it, but didn't leave then it would gain an overall negative charge.
That would create a voltage which, after a short while (probably nanoseconds or so) would exceed the voltage from the supply and stop any current flowing (and thus stop the device working)
So, since the devices work, we know that the input and output currents must be the same.
-
So, since the devices work, we know that the input and output currents must be the same.
But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.
If you're going to cry "conspiracy", then you'd better get some good evidence that there is a conspiracy.
It is a conspiracy scientists are not interested to experiment conservation laws and publish the results.
-
It is a conspiracy scientists are not interested to experiment conservation laws and publish the results.
I take it that you don't know what a conspiracy is.
-
I have seen several papers discussing this current anomaly in transistor lasers and other transistors
You may have seen them, but have you read and understood them?
All the papers mentioning a rewriting of Kirchhoffs laws are written by 2 people Feng and Holonyak and from your comments can only assume you haven't read them.
But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.
Please provide details of the paper which states this - not a press article.
I quote Holonyak on transistor lasers “Kirchhoff’s law takes care of balancing the charge, but it doesn’t take care of balancing the energies”
So charge is balanced. However, Kirchhoff’s law was never about balancing energies, so it is not violated.
Neither is it applicable in all circumstances - remember it is a tool for use in very specific circumstances.
I quote Wiki on Kirchhoff’s law and current/charge(as previously pointed out by @Kryptid):
“Kirchhoff’s Current Law (KCL) is valid only if the total electric charge, Q, remains constant in the region being considered. In practical cases this is always so when KCL is applied at a geometric point. When investigating a finite region, however, it is possible that the charge density within the region may change. Since charge is conserved, this can only come about by a flow of charge across the region boundary. This flow represents a net current, and KCL is violated.”
So, as I've said before there is no problem here. Neither current, charge nor energy are disappearing.
Also, this is completely irrelevant to W=mg as no mass is being lost either. A transistor laser is a complex construct of junctions and quantum wells, it is not a simple piece of homogeneous mass, there is no comparison with the subject of this topic. Red herring.
Overall your theory lacks any credibility. No one is going to test a theory based on the idea that light consists of electrons of different speeds. It’s a unicorn theory. Not worth our spending time on.
-
But input and output currents are Not the same in transistor lasers.
Says who?
Show me the measurements.
-
You may have seen them, but have you read and understood them?
All the papers mentioning a rewriting of Kirchhoffs laws are written by 2 people Feng and Holonyak and from your comments can only assume you haven't read them.
I didn't read the paper because I can't get access from my computer. But I read several press articles and seen this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c).
I quote Holonyak on transistor lasers “Kirchhoff’s law takes care of balancing the charge, but it doesn’t take care of balancing the energies”
So charge is balanced.
If input current is higher than output current and a photon is not an electron charge is not balanced. In my theory input electrons equals output electrons plus radiated electrons so charge is balanced.
Also, this is completely irrelevant to W=mg as no mass is being lost either. A transistor laser is a complex construct of junctions and quantum wells, it is not a simple piece of homogeneous mass, there is no comparison with the subject of this topic.
This has nothing to do with conservation of mass and the title of this thread. Only another prediction of my theory.
-
" this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c)."
Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?
-
Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?
Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?
-
Does it say what I b is?
Did you forget that transistors have 3 legs?
Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?
It's far from clear.
-
Isn't the laser beam the third leg in a transistor laser ?
LOL All bipolar transistors have 3 legs. Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that?
Conventionally, and more correctly, we refer to the laser output as an output port rather than a leg. For example an led diode is still a 2 leg device.
this video presenting a diagram (minute 4) showing current entering the transistor (I e) is higher than current exiting the transistor (I c).
That's the way transistors work, as @Bored chemist says you have to take account of the base current.
However, you have misread the diagram, Ic is to the right of the band diagram, Ie to the left, so Ic>Ie
A conventional bipolar transistor can be modelled as 2 diode junctions. In this case you can use Kirchhoff directly because Ib+Ic+Ie=0 - remember what I said about point junction?
The transistor laser is a region device and as I explained Kirchhoff can’t be used to model currents in these devices. However, the charge/current still adds up, but you have to take Ic to be the sum of:
- the re-supply of holes by the Franz-Keldysh photon-assisted tunnelling;
- the re-supply of holes via the direct tunnelling of electrons;
- the usual base minority carrier current transport of injected electrons that do not recombine and are collected
This has nothing to do with conservation of mass and the title of this thread. Only another prediction of my theory.
Even if the predictions of your theory are correct it does not prove your theory, there would be far more plausible theories.
The problem is that your theory is based on unicorn premises which we already know are untrue - proven by experiment. Eg:
- Light is not composed of electrons moving at different speeds
- Red light and blue light do not propagate at different speeds
- There are no disc shaped electrons to explain polarisation
- Your theory denies the existence of relativity which is well proven
Again, I stress you need to learn some basic physics before trying to rewrite it and show where current experimental results support your theory - particularly on the above 4 where evidence is strongly against you.
-
LOL All bipolar transistors have 3 legs. Are you seriously telling us you didn't know that?
I know electrical transistors have 3 legs.
That's the way transistors work, as @Bored chemist says you have to take account of the base current.
Transistor laser is a semiconductor device that functions as a transistor with an electrical output and an optical output as opposed to the two electrical output - Wikipedia. The transistor laser functions like a typical transistor but emits infrared light through on of its outputs rather than electricity - Wikipedia. As I understand this the base current is replaced with infrared light.
Even if the predictions of your theory are correct it does not prove your theory
True. But disproves conservation laws of traditional physics.
there would be far more plausible theories.
All theories welcome. Let experimental results decide which is best.
The problem is that your theory is based on unicorn premises which we already know are untrue - proven by experiment. Eg:
- Light is not composed of electrons moving at different speeds
- Red light and blue light do not propagate at different speeds
- There are no disc shaped electrons to explain polarisation
- Your theory denies the existence of relativity which is well proven
I heard red light travels faster than blue light in glass, water, air and vacuum of space. Red light from supernova explosions arrives a few seconds before blue light. So please send references of experiments showing red and blue light travel at the same speed.
P.S. weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves the existence of relativity.
-
I heard red light travels faster than blue light in glass, water, air and vacuum of space. Red light from supernova explosions arrives a few seconds before blue light. So please send references of experiments showing red and blue light travel at the same speed.
You heard wrong. An attempt to detect differences in speed between high energy electromagnetic radiation and low energy electromagnetic radiation generated by a distant gamma ray burst failed to find any such difference: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/ (https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/)
-
You heard wrong. An attempt to detect differences in speed between high energy electromagnetic radiation and low energy electromagnetic radiation generated by a distant gamma ray burst failed to find any such difference: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/
I read the link you provided. I don't understand a key observation was a single photon produced by a gamma-ray burst. The question is if the data collected is interpreted correctly. I read something about timing assumptions and wonder what other assumptions were used to interpret the results ? relativity ? quantum physics ? Weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves all assumptions. The results will have to be interpreted differently.
-
I read the link you provided. I don't understand a key observation was a single photon produced by a gamma-ray burst.
It wasn't just a single photon:
The 31GeV gamma ray has the sort of energy needed to see a difference between it and some of the lower-energy photons detected at the same time, and the event was short-lived, with most of the high-energy photons arriving within a single second of each other. If high energy photons moved at a different speed, we should be able to detect it.
They found no detectable difference in arrival time between those lower energy photons and the high energy one.
The question is if the data collected is interpreted correctly. I read something about timing assumptions and wonder what other assumptions were used to interpret the results ? relativity ? quantum physics ?
If two photons from the same event traveled the same distance and arrived at the same time, they must have been travelling at the same speed. Relativity and quantum physics have nothing to do with it. It's elementary school level math, plain and simple.
Weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum disproves all assumptions.
It would have no effect on how we calculate an object's velocity.
The results will have to be interpreted differently.
Speed is distance divided by time. There is only one correct way to interpret it.
-
They found no detectable difference in arrival time between those lower energy photons and the high energy one.
If two photons from the same event traveled the same distance and arrived at the same time, they must have been travelling at the same speed.
How can you tell this single photon was not a background photon originated somewhere else along the direction of the burst and happened to arrive at the same time as the lower energy photons from the burst ?
-
How can you tell this single photon was not a background photon originated somewhere else along the direction of the burst and happened to arrive at the same time as the lower energy photons from the burst ?
Its extremely high energy. Background photons are microwave photons, not gamma ray photons. It would also be an inconceivably precise coincidence to think that two such photons from sources light-years apart happened to arrive within the same millisecond at the exact same detector.
-
Background photons are microwave photons, not gamma ray photons.
There is also a cosmic gamma ray background radiation. The sun produces gamma rays and so most if not all other stars and galaxies.It would also be an inconceivably precise coincidence to think that two such photons from sources light-years apart happened to arrive within the same millisecond at the exact same detector.
How many gamma rays are detected by Fermi satellite each second ?
-
There is also a cosmic gamma ray background radiation. The sun produces gamma rays and so most if not all other stars and galaxies.
The Sun only releases gamma rays into space during solar flares, and they are much weaker (4 GeV) than the gamma ray photon mentioned in the article (31 GeV). The energy of a gamma ray is inversely proportional to how common it is. That is, weak gamma rays are more common than strong ones: https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Fitchel/figure1.gif (https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/ESSAYS/Fitchel/figure1.gif)
How many gamma rays are detected by Fermi satellite each second ?
I don't know, but gamma rays with billions of electronvolts of energy are very rare (see the chart I posted above).
-
You heard wrong. An attempt to detect differences in speed between high energy electromagnetic radiation and low energy electromagnetic radiation generated by a distant gamma ray burst failed to find any such difference: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/
I don't have your relativistic faith to accept this paper as conclusive proof all photons travel at the same speed. My theory predicts gamma photons should travel faster than visible photons. I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
-
I don't have your relativistic faith to accept this paper as conclusive proof all photons travel at the same speed. My theory predicts gamma photons should travel faster than visible photons. I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
Relativity has nothing to do with it. Speed is distance divided by time. No relativity required.
-
My theory predicts gamma photons should travel faster than visible photons. I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
No, your theory is wrong. Gamma radiation speed can be measured here on earth and is same as light - again as @Kryptid says, dont need to use relativity.
I also note you are confused about the base current in the transistor laser, if i have time I’ll write out the detail of what happens and why current is not lost.
-
I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
Observedly, no.
You don't need to "wonder" about this- it's been checked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_080319B
So, if you were interested in actual science, you would now ditch the idea (the one you keep lying about being a theory) but I predict that you won't because you are trolling.
-
I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
Observedly, no.
You don't need to "wonder" about this- it's been checked.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_080319B
So, if you were interested in actual science, you would now ditch the idea (the one you keep lying about being a theory) but I predict that you won't because you are trolling.
And I had read Gamma ray photons usually arrive hours before visible photons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
No, your theory is wrong. Gamma radiation speed can be measured here on earth and is same as light - again as @Kryptid says, dont need to use relativity.
Reference welcome.
I don't have your relativistic faith to accept this paper as conclusive proof all photons travel at the same speed. My theory predicts gamma photons should travel faster than visible photons. I wonder if in gamma ray bursts gamma photons arrive before visible photons ?
Relativity has nothing to do with it. Speed is distance divided by time. No relativity required.
I read the sun produces GeV gamma photons by interactions with cosmic rays. If the sun produces GeV photons most other stars also produce GeV photons. There are plenty of GeV photon sources. What I meant you need a relativistic faith to conclude this single photon must have originated at the burst.
-
And I had read Gamma ray photons usually arrive hours before visible photons.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-ray_burst
Please quote the part of that page which states that visible light arrives hours after the gamma rays do, because I can't find it.
I read the sun produces GeV gamma photons by interactions with cosmic rays. If the sun produces GeV photons most other stars also produce GeV photons. There are plenty of GeV photon sources.
You make it sound as if Fermi only detects gamma rays without any ability to tell what direction they came from. The 31 GeV gamma ray was detected using the Large Area Telescope instrument, which has several layers of silicon microstrip detectors. The direction of the photon can be determined by the way that the resulting electron-positron pair passes through these layers. So we know that the photon came from the direction of the gamma ray burst.
What I meant you need a relativistic faith to conclude this single photon must have originated at the burst.
Relativity has nothing to do with determining where a gamma ray photon came from.
-
Please quote the part of that page which states that visible light arrives hours after the gamma rays do, because I can't find it.
"After an initial flash of gamma rays, a longer-lived "afterglow" is usually emitted at longer wavelengths".
"The William Herschel Telescope identified a fading optical counterpart 20 hours after the burst".
"The following year, GRB 980425 was followed within a day by a bright supernova".
You make it sound as if Fermi only detects gamma rays without any ability to tell what direction they came from. The 31 GeV gamma ray was detected using the Large Area Telescope instrument, which has several layers of silicon microstrip detectors. The direction of the photon can be determined by the way that the resulting electron-positron pair passes through these layers. So we know that the photon came from the direction of the gamma ray burst.
How many stars and galaxies are located inside angle of detection ?
Relativity has nothing to do with determining where a gamma ray photon came from.
You so believe light travels at the same speed that you placed the origin of this photon were you wanted it.
-
"After an initial flash of gamma rays, a longer-lived "afterglow" is usually emitted at longer wavelengths".
This says that the afterglow is longer-lived than the initial gamma ray flash, not that the visible light from the initial flash took longer to reach us.
"The William Herschel Telescope identified a fading optical counterpart 20 hours after the burst".
Again, this doesn't say that the light reached us 20 hours after the gamma rays did. It says that the optical counterpart wasn't found until 20 hours after the gamma rays were detected.
"The following year, GRB 980425 was followed within a day by a bright supernova".
GRB 980425 was detected by the BeppoSAX satellite, which didn't use its Narrow Field Instruments to look at the source of the GRB until within 12 hours of its detection. So of course the supernova wasn't found until hours after the burst was detected.
How many stars and galaxies are located inside angle of detection ?
Unknown, but also irrelevant. A stray gamma ray with a 31 GeV energy isn't going to conveniently strike the detector within the same second as photons from the gamma ray burst. The probability can even be estimated based on the statistics of gamma rays that Fermi has detected in the past:
Using the count rate in the LAT during the 200 s directly preceding T0 as a measure of the background rate, the probability that these three photons would arise by accident is 1.2 × 10−6
So the odds of the 31 GeV gamma ray and two other burst rays (each above 100 MeV) striking the detector within the 0.2 second time span they were detected in by chance alone was 1,200,000 to 1. You're appealing to a miracle in an attempt to debunk the findings. Here is the paper that I got this information from, on page 7: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2141.pdf (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2141.pdf)
You so believe light travels at the same speed that you placed the origin of this photon were you wanted it.
The odds are 1,200,000 to 1 for the origin to not be the burst.
-
"After an initial flash of gamma rays, a longer-lived "afterglow" is usually emitted at longer wavelengths".
This says that the afterglow is longer-lived than the initial gamma ray flash, not that the visible light from the initial flash took longer to reach us.
The term "after" at the beginning of the sentence suggests to me a flash of gamma rays appear before longer wavelength afterglow.How many stars and galaxies are located inside angle of detection ?
Unknown, but also irrelevant.
Each star inside angle of detection is a potential source for a strayed GeV photon.
So the odds of the 31 GeV gamma ray and two other burst rays (each above 100 MeV) striking the detector within the 0.2 second time span they were detected in by chance alone was 1,200,000 to 1. You're appealing to a miracle in an attempt to debunk the findings. Here is the paper that I got this information from, on page 7: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1005.2141.pdf
I don't understand this paper.
The odds are 1,200,000 to 1 for the origin to not be the burst.
My theory predicts gamma photons from gamma-ray bursts should arrive before visible photons. The same arrival time of gamma and visible photons will disprove my theory. What's the odds on that ?
-
The term "after" at the beginning of the sentence suggests to me a flash of gamma rays appear before longer wavelength afterglow.
I don't understand
-
The term "after" at the beginning of the sentence suggests to me a flash of gamma rays appear before longer wavelength afterglow.
That's why it's called an afterglow: the remnants of the burst are still emitting lower-energy light even after the initial explosion has taken place. In no way does that imply that light from the initial burst arrived after the gamma rays did. If such were the case, then it would be common knowledge in the astrophysics community by now that gamma rays are faster than visible light. Such is not the case.
Each star inside angle of detection is a potential source for a strayed GeV photon.
Do you not recall that the odds of that being the case were 1 in 1.2 million?
I don't understand this paper.
I'm not surprised.
My theory predicts gamma photons from gamma-ray bursts should arrive before visible photons. The same arrival time of gamma and visible photons will disprove my theory. What's the odds on that ?
These findings mean that your hypothesis has a 1 in 1.2 million chance of being correct. At best.
-
These findings mean that your hypothesis has a 1 in 1.2 million chance of being correct. At best.
You are being generous today :)
Earthside measurements indicate gamma photons move at c:
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.84.271
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995NIMPA.355..537F
Also for xrays:
2. E.Zolotoyabko and J.P.Quintana. Measurement of the speed of x-rays. J.Synchrotron.Rad. 9 (2002) 60-64. The value obtained converged to the speed of light in vacuum, i.e., c.
Of course he won’t believe this (or understand) because they challenge his hypothesis. If he has any problems with them i suggest he take it up with a local physics department
-
Earthside measurements indicate gamma photons move at c:
https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.84.271
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995NIMPA.355..537F
I can't get access to these papers. Is there a way to link the papers to this discussion ?
I read in abstract the speed was determined using a scintillation counter. I gather this is an indirect measurement. Can you please explain how speed is determined using a scintillator ?
-
I gather this is an indirect measurement.
It isn't really, but so what if it were?
Say the measured the speed by setting some gamma rays off down a really long pipe and measured how long it took the bunny rabbits at the end of the pipe to die.
It would still be a measure of the speed.
Also "I can't get access to these papers."
See the earlier comment
"If he has any problems with them i suggest he take it up with a local physics department"
-
Please quote the part of that page which states that visible light arrives hours after the gamma rays do, because I can't find it.
"After an initial flash of gamma rays, a longer-lived "afterglow" is usually emitted at longer wavelengths".
"The William Herschel Telescope identified a fading optical counterpart 20 hours after the burst".
"The following year, GRB 980425 was followed within a day by a bright supernova".
I made a mistake here thinking optical signals arrive hours after gamma-ray bursts.
My theory predicts gamma photons from gamma-ray bursts should arrive before visible photons. The same arrival time of gamma and visible photons will disprove my theory. What's the odds on that ?
These findings mean that your hypothesis has a 1 in 1.2 million chance of being correct. At best.
I searched the internet and found a few graphs showing optical signals appear seconds after the start of the burst. Check this link. I also noticed bursts are complex and no two are alike but wonder if several seconds delay between the beginning of the burst and optical signal is a common feature of bursts.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast26mar99_1
-
I searched the internet and found a few graphs showing optical signals appear seconds after the start of the burst. Check this link. I also noticed bursts are complex and no two are alike but wonder if several seconds delay between the beginning of the burst and optical signal is a common feature of bursts.
https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast26mar99_1
The graph looks incomplete. Although background gamma rays are clearly plotted on the graph prior to the burst (almost back to the 35,200 second mark), no such data line exists for background optical photons (even though there most certainly would have been background optical photons). This suggests to me that the optical detector either wasn't designed to detect visible light until it reached a certain minimum threshold of brightness or that the data simply wasn't included on this graph. In either case, that isn't evidence that the visible light arrived after the gamma rays did.
-
In either case, that isn't evidence that the visible light arrived after the gamma rays did.
This is another diagram from a different burst showing an optical peak appearing several seconds after gamma burst.
http://images.slideplayer.com/26/8876937/slides/slide_3.jpg
-
In either case, that isn't evidence that the visible light arrived after the gamma rays did.
This is another diagram from a different burst showing an optical peak appearing several seconds after gamma burst.
This isn’t evidence that γ-rays travel faster that optical photons because you don't know the profile of the emissions. But you can make a reasonable assumption.
In any explosion the emissions will depend on the temperature over time. For example with a nuclear bomb the initial exceedingly high temperature causes sudden release of a high energy γ-rays E=hν≈1-10 MeV, as it cools x-rays E=hν≈1-100 keV, and as it cools further then progressively lower temperature radiation is released UV, visible light, IR, microwave, radiowave. These latter frequencies are the ‘afterglow’ with the optical peak following the gamma peak.
GRB in astronomy appears to be far more complex than the simple nuclear explosion.
-
In either case, that isn't evidence that the visible light arrived after the gamma rays did.
This is another diagram from a different burst showing an optical peak appearing several seconds after gamma burst.
This isn’t evidence that γ-rays travel faster that optical photons because you don't know the profile of the emissions. But you can make a reasonable assumption.
In any explosion the emissions will depend on the temperature over time. For example with a nuclear bomb the initial exceedingly high temperature causes sudden release of a high energy γ-rays E=hν≈1-10 MeV, as it cools x-rays E=hν≈1-100 keV, and as it cools further then progressively lower temperature radiation is released UV, visible light, IR, microwave, radiowave. These latter frequencies are the ‘afterglow’ with the optical peak following the gamma peak.
GRB in astronomy appears to be far more complex than the simple nuclear explosion.
I think you raise an important point here. Different types of radiation could originate at different times. If this is the case in GRBs they are not good systems to test predictions about the speed of light. That GeV photon may have originated at a different time ?
-
You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.
That's pretty obvious.
Why do you keep imagining that it tells you that the gammas arrive first (rather than being observed first)?
Do you not understand the system, or are you ignoring the facts because they don't agree with the WAG you keep mislabelling as a theory?
-
You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.
I read modern telescopes focus within seconds to the correct position of a GRB. The authors of the graph which was published in Nature claim optical brightness peaked several seconds after the burst. Is it a common feature of GRBs ?
-
I think you raise an important point here. Different types of radiation could originate at different times. If this is the case in GRBs they are not good systems to test predictions about the speed of light.
We never suggested GRBs are any use in testing relative speeds. In fact I see that @Kryptid has already made this point when he said “That's why it's called an afterglow: the remnants of the burst are still emitting lower-energy light even after the initial explosion has taken place.”back in #211.
-
We never suggested GRBs are any use in testing relative speeds. In fact I see that @Kryptid has already made this point when he said “That's why it's called an afterglow: the remnants of the burst are still emitting lower-energy light even after the initial explosion has taken place.”back in #211.
I think analyzing GRBs can't provide a conclusive answer to the question does light travels at the same speed or at different speeds. Delayed optical peak could be later emissions and I suspect does not prove a prediction of my theory gamma photons should travel faster than optical photons. Similarly the 31 GeV photon detected at the same time with lower energy photons could have originated at a different time.
-
You can leave a gamma ray detector pointed "at the sky" all the time. If there's a sudden increase in gammas then the detector will spot it.
Once you know there's a GRB happening you can try to work out where it is and point an optical telescope at it, but that takes time. Essentially gamma detectors have a much bigger field of view and lower background noise.
So the observation of the gammas will (almost) always happen before the observation of the visible light.
I read modern telescopes focus within seconds to the correct position of a GRB. The authors of the graph which was published in Nature claim optical brightness peaked several seconds after the burst. Is it a common feature of GRBs ?
Well, if they capture the optical image within seconds of the gamma burst you must know that they arrive within seconds.
If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.
-
If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.
My theory predicts different types of light travel at different speeds and precision measurements are required to test this prediction of my theory. I wonder if the longest vacuum tubes (LIGO?) and most accurate clocks on earth could find this prediction of my theory ?
-
If they get here from a galaxy far far away within seconds then they travel at pretty much the sane speed and your idea (the one you kept falsely calling a "theory") is utterly wrong.
My theory predicts different types of light travel at different speeds and precision measurements are required to test this prediction of my theory. I wonder if the longest vacuum tubes (LIGO?) and most accurate clocks on earth could find this prediction of my theory ?
How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?
-
How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?
My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.
-
My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.
Why do you propose that gamma rays travel faster than visible light in the first place? What is the reasoning?
-
How big a variation do you predict between, for example, visible light and gamma rays?
My theory provides qualitative predictions. Quantitative predictions can only be made after results of experiments.
So, it's not really science then...
-
Why do you propose that gamma rays travel faster than visible light in the first place? What is the reasoning?
Gamma rays penetrate most materials that block light. My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.
-
Gamma rays penetrate most materials that block light.
What does that have to do with anything? Extreme ultraviolet light (10-121 nm) is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere even though visible light (400-700 nm) can pass through it easily. Ultra low frequency waves (100-1,000 km) can penetrate the ground, even though much more energetic visible light is strongly absorbed by it.
My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.
And how does that imply that gamma rays are faster than visible light?
-
What does that have to do with anything?
In my theory negative gamma particles travel faster than negative light particles and interact more weakly with charged particles in a material. Slower light particles interacts more strongly with charge particles in a material and are deflected away more quickly in all directions.
Extreme ultraviolet light (10-121 nm) is strongly absorbed by the atmosphere even though visible light (400-700 nm) can pass through it easily. Ultra low frequency waves (100-1,000 km) can penetrate the ground, even though much more energetic visible light is strongly absorbed by it.
Absorption of light by an atom depends on two primary factors; the speed of a light particle and the type of an atom/molecule/crystal. When these two factors match a light particle is absorbed and when they don't match a light particle is deflected.
And how does that imply that gamma rays are faster than visible light?
Faster negative gamma particles deflect less than slower negative light particles when arrive at close proximity to the positively charged prism.
-
In my theory negative gamma particles travel faster than negative light particles and interact more weakly with charged particles in a material.Slower light particles interacts more strongly with charge particles in a material and are deflected away more quickly in all directions.
Now you need to demonstrate that faster particles interact more weakly with matter than slower particles do. That certainly is not the case with neutrons, so why should it be true for photons?
Absorption of light by an atom depends on two primary factors; the speed of a light particle and the type of an atom/molecule/crystal. When these two factors match a light particle is absorbed and when they don't match a light particle is deflected.
If that's the case, then how can you say that one wavelength of photon is predicted to travel faster than another? How would I determine whether a blue photon or a red photon is faster? Some materials will absorb the blue photon while allowing the red photon to pass whereas a different material will absorb the red photon and allow the blue photon to pass through. How can you know whether the absorption was due to a difference in speed or a difference in "the type of an atom/molecule/crystal"?
Faster negative gamma particles deflect less than slower negative light particles when arrive at close proximity to the positively charged prism.
Now you need to demonstrate that there is some good reason to believe that the speed of a photon has an effect on how much it is deflected by a prism.
-
Now you need to demonstrate that faster particles interact more weakly with matter than slower particles do. That certainly is not the case with neutrons, so why should it be true for photons?
I imagine a faster moving electron should deflect less than a slower moving electron when pass near a proton.
If that's the case, then how can you say that one wavelength of photon is predicted to travel faster than another?
In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.
How would I determine whether a blue photon or a red photon is faster?
Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.
Now you need to demonstrate that there is some good reason to believe that the speed of a photon has an effect on how much it is deflected by a prism.
Measurable differences in speed of light as determined by experiments will provide a good reason to incorporate speed to explain deflection by a prism.
My theory predicts gamma rays should refract less than visible light by a prism.
Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?
-
In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.
Gamma rays have shorter wavelengths than visible light and measurements confirm speed is same as visible light and other em radiation as previously described.
Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.
Apollo left a mirror on moon and laser light has been bounced off it. No speed change with colour.
Also sunlight bounces off moon and we don’t see difference in speed with colour.
If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.
If your ideas were correct we would also see a speed difference between microwaves and visible light, should have shown up during Apollo program, but there was non.
Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?
No, gamma rays deflect less under current physics. Also refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency and this is confirmed by measurements.
-
Apollo left a mirror on moon and laser light has been bounced off it. No speed change with colour.
I suspect one type of laser beam is used in this experiment to determine distance to the moon and wonder if using a different color of laser would give different results ?
Also sunlight bounces off moon and we don’t see difference in speed with colour.
A difference in speed can only be measured at the beginning of a light beam.
If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.
There should be all sorts of strange color effects due to interaction of light and atmosphere. Also my theory predicts blue light should deflect more than red light by gravitational fields (positive charges) of celestial objects.
If your ideas were correct we would also see a speed difference between microwaves and visible light, should have shown up during Apollo program, but there was non.
Reference required.refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency
My theory provides a simpler explanation.
-
I imagine a faster moving electron should deflect less than a slower moving electron when pass near a proton.
Why? More importantly, why should an uncharged particle like a photon necessarily refract less just because it is moving faster? You also need to define how much faster a gamma ray is supposed to travel than a visible photon. That is absolutely critical. If you don't do that, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. There are always limits to the precision of experiments and if you don't define the bounds of your hypothesis then there will always be enough "wiggle room" for you to claim that your hypothesis could still be correct.
For example, if we were to determine from experiment that gamma rays and visible light travel at the same speed to within 99% accuracy, then you can claim that your hypothesis is still feasible because we haven't ruled out that gamma rays travel 0.5% faster than visible light. If we advance the experiment and narrow that down to 99.9% accuracy, you can step back and claim that gamma rays being 0.05% faster than visible light is still feasible. Then we can advance it further to 99.99% accuracy and you can step back even further and say that gamma rays being 0.005% faster is still possible and we can continue this cycle on and on forever. At no point can we prove your hypothesis wrong because you have failed to explain at what point it is supposed to break down. That's why your proposal is unscientific.
In my theory faster speeds are correlated with longer wavelengths. Gamma rays should travel fastest and have longest wavelength.
You have it backwards. Gamma rays are the electromagnetic waves with the shortest wavelengths. By your reasoning, they should therefore be slower than visible light, not faster.
Experiments! Maybe bouncing different types of light of mirror left on the moon could measure this prediction. In my theory red light should travel faster than blue light.
Measurable differences in speed of light as determined by experiments will provide a good reason to incorporate speed to explain deflection by a prism.
You predict that there is a direct correlation between wavelength and speed of photons. You also predict that there is a direct correlation between the speed of photons and their refraction. This, in turn, means that there should also be a direct correlation between a photon's wavelength and its refraction. There is not, as shown in the link below:
Isn't traditional physics predicts gamma rays should refract more than visible light by a prism ?
Not necessarily. The amount of refraction is strongly dependent upon the structure that the rays are passing through:
Refraction works well with visible light, a small part of the electromagnetic spectrum, because the light waves have a frequency that chimes well with the oscillations of orbiting electrons. But for higher energy electromagnetic radiation—ultraviolet and beyond—the frequencies are too high for the electrons to respond, and lenses become less and less effective.
Source: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/gamma-ray-bending-opens-new-door-optics (http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/05/gamma-ray-bending-opens-new-door-optics)
-
Why? More importantly, why should an uncharged particle like a photon necessarily refract less just because it is moving faster?
In my theory a photon is a fast electron. You haven't read my theory, have you ?
You also need to define how much faster a gamma ray is supposed to travel than a visible photon. That is absolutely critical.
Precision speed measurements of different colors of light will provide quantitative values. Gamma rays may travel too fast to be measured directly because they are not reflected by mirrors but could be determined indirectly by for example comparing refraction through a prism to refraction of visible light.
If you don't do that, then your hypothesis is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. There are always limits to the precision of experiments and if you don't define the bounds of your hypothesis then there will always be enough "wiggle room" for you to claim that your hypothesis could still be correct.
For example, if we were to determine from experiment that gamma rays and visible light travel at the same speed to within 99% accuracy, then you can claim that your hypothesis is still feasible because we haven't ruled out that gamma rays travel 0.5% faster than visible light. If we advance the experiment and narrow that down to 99.9% accuracy, you can step back and claim that gamma rays being 0.05% faster than visible light is still feasible. Then we can advance it further to 99.99% accuracy and you can step back even further and say that gamma rays being 0.005% faster is still possible and we can continue this cycle on and on forever. At no point can we prove your hypothesis wrong because you have failed to explain at what point it is supposed to break down. That's why your proposal is unscientific.
My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperature in vacuum. If there is no change in weight I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change is too small to measured and my theory is right. If however there is a measurable reduction in weight conservation of mass is disproved and your theory is wrong. Precision measurements required! My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right. If there is a measurable change in current Kirchhoff's conservation of charge is falsified and your theory is wrong again. Precision measurements required! My theory predicts different colors of light should travel at different speeds. If there is no measurable change in speed I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that differences are too small to be measured and my theory is right. If there are measurable differences in speed Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is falsified and your theory is wrong again and again. Precision measurements required! My theory provides many experimentally testable predictions and therefore is a scientific theory.
You have it backwards. Gamma rays are the electromagnetic waves with the shortest wavelengths. By your reasoning, they should therefore be slower than visible light, not faster.
I know how it supposed to work in traditional physics. In my theory gamma-rays should have the longest wavelengths.You predict that there is a direct correlation between wavelength and speed of photons. You also predict that there is a direct correlation between the speed of photons and their refraction. This, in turn, means that there should also be a direct correlation between a photon's wavelength and its refraction.
My theory predicts gamma-rays should have longest wavelengths, not shortest.
Not necessarily. The amount of refraction is strongly dependent upon the structure that the rays are passing through:
Also in my theory.
-
In my theory a photon is a fast electron. You haven't read my theory, have you ?
Then it's automatically wrong. Here's why:
(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this. You can only fit so many electrons in one space at a time.
(2) If photons were electrons, then the annihilation of an electron with a positron to produce a pair of photons would violate charge conservation as you are actually somehow producing two electrons from a positron-electron annihilation.
(3) Beams of electrons can be deflected by magnetic fields whereas beams of photons cannot. Watch this video of an electron beam being deflected by magnetism:
The energy of electrons in a cathode ray are in the kilo-electronvolt range. That is equivalent to x-ray level energies for photons. For one thing, the beam should not be visible if it was made up of x-rays (especially since it's travelling in a vacuum), yet in this video it very clearly is visible. So it cannot be made of x-ray photons, even though it has x-ray-type energy levels. You claim that slower moving particles should be deflected more than faster particles. If this was true, then you would expect slower moving, lower energy photons (like a beam of visible light) to be even more strongly deflected by the magnetic field than the cathode ray beam is. Yet visible light is not bent by magnetic fields. That's easily testable at home with a magnet and laser pointer.
Electrons absolutely cannot be photons.
Precision speed measurements of different colors of light will provide quantitative values.
But your hypothesis does not tell us what quantitative values we should expect to find, meaning that these precision measurements cannot possibly falsify your hypothesis.
Gamma rays may travel too fast to be measured directly because they are not reflected by mirrors but could be determined indirectly by for example comparing refraction through a prism to refraction of visible light.
That won't tell you anything because the amount of refraction depends on the materials used in the prism.
My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperature in vacuum. If there is no change in weight I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change is too small to measured and my theory is right.
That's why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific: it cannot be falsified. You also cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.
If however there is a measurable reduction in weight conservation of mass is disproved and your theory is wrong. Precision measurements required!
Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.
My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right.
Which is, again, why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific. It is not falsifiable. You also cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.
If there is a measurable change in current Kirchhoff's conservation of charge is falsified and your theory is wrong again. Precision measurements required!
Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.
My theory predicts different colors of light should travel at different speeds. If there is no measurable change in speed I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that differences are too small to be measured and my theory is right.
Which is, for the third time, why this prediction of your hypothesis is unscientific: it isn't falsifiable. Just as you cannot prove that Bigfoot does not exist.
If there are measurable differences in speed Maxwell's electromagnetic theory is falsified and your theory is wrong again and again. Precision measurements required!
Yes, just as the discovery of Bigfoot would prove Bigfoot skeptics wrong.
My theory provides many experimentally testable predictions and therefore is a scientific theory.
It is verifiable but it is not falsifiable. That's a critical difference. If it is correct, you could potentially prove that it is correct, but if it is wrong, you can never prove that it is wrong. It's the exact same thing as the search for Bigfoot: if Bigfoot is real, you could prove it some day by finding a body. If Bigfoot is not real, you could never prove that it doesn't exist because there is always some excuse you could use to explain why we haven't found it yet. That's why cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience: it lacks falsifiability.
No falsifiability, no science.
I know how it supposed to work in traditional physics. In my theory gamma-rays should have the longest wavelengths.
My theory predicts gamma-rays should have longest wavelengths, not shortest.
Then your hypothesis is automatically wrong. We know that higher energy corresponds with shorter wavelengths. Gamma rays have high energy and therefore have short wavelengths. We are capable of measuring the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation and also of measuring how much energy they have. This has allowed us to work out the relationship between wavelength and energy: Energy = (Planck's constant times the speed of light) divided by the wavelength.
And yes, wavelength is something that can be measured. Here is one way that even students can measure the wavelength of light: http://practicalphysics.org/measuring-wavelength-light.html (http://practicalphysics.org/measuring-wavelength-light.html)
Also in my theory.
Then your claim that gamma rays should refract more than visible light was a vacuous statement.
-
(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this. You can only fit so many electrons in one space at a time.
In my theory light electrons are very fast and tiny and collisions are rare. I can think of a precision experiment. Cross two laser beams in a dark vacuum container and reflects beams away after they crossed each other. Cover all sides of the container with light detectors. My theory predicts some light particles should be deflected and registered by the detector.
(2) If photons were electrons, then the annihilation of an electron with a positron to produce a pair of photons would violate charge conservation as you are actually somehow producing two electrons from a positron-electron annihilation.
If any of my predictions are correct this theory of elementary interactions is wrong.
(3) Beams of electrons can be deflected by magnetic fields whereas beams of photons cannot. Watch this video of an electron beam being deflected by magnetism:
This video doesn't show that as you increase the voltage and speed of electrons in the beam the deflection of the beam decreases. I can imagine electrons travelling so fast as to appear undeflected.
The energy of electrons in a cathode ray are in the kilo-electronvolt range. That is equivalent to x-ray level energies for photons.
Which experiments are used to calculate energies of electrons in a cathode and energies of x-rays ?
For one thing, the beam should not be visible if it was made up of x-rays (especially since it's travelling in a vacuum), yet in this video it very clearly is visible.
In this experiment electrons are absorbed by gas particles in the almost vacuum tube and emitted at an accelerated speeds to visible light. X-rays travel at different speed and are not absorbed by gas in the almost vacuum tube.
If this was true, then you would expect slower moving, lower energy photons (like a beam of visible light) to be even more strongly deflected by the magnetic field than the cathode ray beam is. Yet visible light is not bent by magnetic fields.
In my theory blue light travels slower than red light and interact more strongly with electrons on a photocathode and appear to have more energy. Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies. There should be an optimal speed that liberates most electrons from a photocathode and faster and lower electrons will librate fewer electrons from a photocathode and appear less energetic.
It is verifiable but it is not falsifiable. That's a critical difference. If it is correct, you could potentially prove that it is correct, but if it is wrong, you can never prove that it is wrong. It's the exact same thing as the search for Bigfoot: if Bigfoot is real, you could prove it some day by finding a body. If Bigfoot is not real, you could never prove that it doesn't exist because there is always some excuse you could use to explain why we haven't found it yet. That's why cryptozoology is considered a pseudoscience: it lacks falsifiability.
No falsifiability, no science.
If weight does Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum and electric current does Not drop across a radiation emitting device and different colors of light do Not travel at different speeds my theory can be described as a Bigfoot theory. If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot but your theory falsified. If all the above predictions are confirmed my theory has a chance at providing a framework for new physics - and your theory disproved.
-
me.
OK, we need to clarify something here.
the speed of any electromagnetic radiation measured in a vacuum is the same.
In other materials, such as water or air, the apparent speed is reduced.
That's understandable in terms of classical physics or QM- take your pick.
However, if you want to claim that the speed of radiation travelling across the vacuum of space depends on wavelength, then you need to provide some evidence.
-
the speed of any electromagnetic radiation measured in a vacuum is the same.
Reference required.
However, if you want to claim that the speed of radiation travelling across the vacuum of space depends on wavelength, then you need to provide some evidence.
In my theory wavelength depends on speed.
-
Reference required.
Really?
Still?
OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
et loc cit.
-
If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot
If the predictions were truly independent, yes. However, all your predictions are based on light being composed of electrons at differing speeds, so they are not independent and one being false causes a domino effect.
Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies.
Then you don't understand energy of electrons, or that of any moving mass.
I suspect one type of laser beam is used in this experiment to determine distance to the moon and wonder if using a different color of laser would give different results ?
The US initially used green, but other colours have been used eg red, Russians did it as well.
If your assumptions were correct we would see strange colour effects when planets are eclipsed.
There should be all sorts of strange color effects due to interaction of light and atmosphere.
Nothing to do with atmosphere, think planets being eclipsed by their moons. Has been used to measure the speed of light, no difference seen with different colours within white light.
Also my theory predicts blue light should deflect more than red light by gravitational fields (positive charges) of celestial objects.
Then your prediction is wrong. See Eddington famous experiment. You can see his original photos in Greenwich observatory, the stars show as white points with no colour smearing.
Also, by your assumptions the deflection should be greater than was measured so you can’t claim more precision needed.
refraction is more complex than a straight dependancy on frequency
My theory provides a simpler explanation.
Then it is wrong because current theory and observation match. Yours won’t match observation.
My theory predicts electric current entering a radiation emitting device should be higher than current exiting the device. If there is no change in current I could still argue from a philosophical viewpoint that change in current is too small to be measured and my theory is right.
No, you cant use that argument here. Take an led, for any observable light output the loss of charge would be significant and the current difference readily measurable. Also as previously pointed out a charge deficit would build up in the device which would be easy to measure. Ive also been through the detail of the transistor laser and no current or charge is lost, the sum of base, emitter and collector currents is 0.
Your hypothesis fails repeatedly and i see no point in pursuing further.
Good luck with convincing someone to take you seriously. I suggest a local university where you can discuss face to face and do some experiments.
-
In my theory light electrons are very fast and tiny and collisions are rare. I can think of a precision experiment. Cross two laser beams in a dark vacuum container and reflects beams away after they crossed each other. Cover all sides of the container with light detectors. My theory predicts some light particles should be deflected and registered by the detector.
If they are “tiny” then that must correspond to short wavelengths and therefore high energies. That is in contradiction to the fact that electromagnetic radiation exists which is low energy with long wavelengths (like radio waves, which can have wavelengths that are kilometers long).
If any of my predictions are correct this theory of elementary interactions is wrong.
It’s not a “theory”, it’s directly observable. We know that electrons and positrons can annihilate to produce gamma rays. The gamma rays given off are detectable. In fact, positron annihilation spectroscopy and positron emission tomography utilize this as their principle of operation.
This video doesn't show that as you increase the voltage and speed of electrons in the beam the deflection of the beam decreases. I can imagine electrons travelling so fast as to appear undeflected.
The electrons in a cathode ray are already traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (from about 1/10 to ⅓ of the value of c). If it deflects visibly over such a short distance, despite moving that quickly, then the beam going only three to ten times faster would still produce a very detectable deflection by a magnetic field.
Which experiments are used to calculate energies of electrons in a cathode and energies of x-rays ?
The energy of electrons is directly calculable by the voltage used to accelerate them. The electronvolt, by definition, is the amount of energy required to move a single electron across an electric potential difference of one volt. Given that we have directly measured the charge and mass on electrons, this isn’t just some “theory” either: it’s based on direct observation.
The energy of X-rays can be found by their various effects on matter, such as photoelectric absorption. Different molecules have different energies that they absorb radiation at and this can be used to tell how much energy the radiation has.
In this experiment electrons are absorbed by gas particles in the almost vacuum tube and emitted at an accelerated speeds to visible light. X-rays travel at different speed and are not absorbed by gas in the almost vacuum tube.
How can the electrons be accelerated by interacting with trace gases in the tube? Collisions with gas molecules should slow them down, not speed them up. Gas molecules can’t pull energy out of nothingness to make the electrons go faster.
When talking about absorption, that leads to another problem with your idea: when a photon is absorbed by an electron in orbit around an atom, the photon disappears and the electron enters a higher energy state. Since the photon is now gone and all that is left is a single electron with extra energy, then any charge on that photon must have been destroyed. That violates conservation of electric charge.
Slower moving electrons do not imply lower energies.
It absolutely does imply that. Objects with mass have more kinetic energy when they move faster. This is directly observable and measurable. Or do you think that a pair of cars colliding at 70 miles per hour is somehow a less energetic collision than if they were travelling at only 35 miles per hour instead?
There should be an optimal speed that liberates most electrons from a photocathode and faster and lower electrons will librate fewer electrons from a photocathode and appear less energetic.
Electrons liberating electrons? What are you talking about, exactly?
If weight does Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum and electric current does Not drop across a radiation emitting device and different colors of light do Not travel at different speeds my theory can be described as a Bigfoot theory. If only one or two of the above predictions are confirmed my theory could still be described as Bigfoot but your theory falsified. If all the above predictions are confirmed my theory has a chance at providing a framework for new physics - and your theory disproved.
So you agree that it’s not falsifiable. Good. It’s pseudoscience.
-
(1) Electrons are fermions whereas photons are bosons, meaning that no two electrons can occupy the same quantum state simultaneously whereas photons can. One consequence of this is that beams of light can pass right through each other as if they were not there. Electrons cannot do this.
Check this link.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lhc-atlas-photons-interact-physics
-
Check this link.
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/lhc-atlas-photons-interact-physics
Yes, I've heard of this before. It's a very rare process, unlike that of electrons interacting with each other (high speed electron-electron collisions can be done readily in particle accelerators). Such has been done since 1964 with the VEP-1 electron-electron collider. It used energies up to 160 MeV, the equivalent to gamma ray energies for photons.
Now what about all of that other stuff I said?
-
Yes, I've heard of this before. It's a very rare process, unlike that of electrons interacting with each other (high speed electron-electron collisions can be done readily in particle accelerators). Such has been done since 1964 with the VEP-1 electron-electron collider. It used energies up to 160 MeV, the equivalent to gamma ray energies for photons.
The article says it is not known how rare are photon- photon interactions and more experiments are required. Magnetic fields in particle accelerators concentrate electrons to high density and lower speed of electrons compared to laser could account for differences in occurrence.
If they are “tiny” then that must correspond to short wavelengths and therefore high energies. That is in contradiction to the fact that electromagnetic radiation exists which is low energy with long wavelengths (like radio waves, which can have wavelengths that are kilometers long).
Different speed of light, if exists and should be tested, disproved Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and your claim short wavelength implies high energy.
It’s not a “theory”, it’s directly observable. We know that electrons and positrons can annihilate to produce gamma rays. The gamma rays given off are detectable. In fact, positron annihilation spectroscopy and positron emission tomography utilize this as their principle of operation.
If any of my predictions are correct a new theory will have to devised to explain how positron annihilation spectroscopy and emission tomography work.
The electrons in a cathode ray are already traveling at a significant fraction of the speed of light (from about 1/10 to ⅓ of the value of c). If it deflects visibly over such a short distance, despite moving that quickly, then the beam going only three to ten times faster would still produce a very detectable deflection by a magnetic field.
If any of my predictions are correct the values you state here will change.
How can the electrons be accelerated by interacting with trace gases in the tube?
Get a kick from another electron in the atom.
When talking about absorption, that leads to another problem with your idea: when a photon is absorbed by an electron in orbit around an atom, the photon disappears and the electron enters a higher energy state. Since the photon is now gone and all that is left is a single electron with extra energy, then any charge on that photon must have been destroyed. That violates conservation of electric charge.
In my theory when a light electron is absorbed by an atom the atom becomes excited and more negative for a fraction of a second and the light electron quickly emitted.
It absolutely does imply that. Objects with mass have more kinetic energy when they move faster. This is directly observable and measurable. Or do you think that a pair of cars colliding at 70 miles per hour is somehow a less energetic collision than if they were travelling at only 35 miles per hour instead?
In my theory blue light electrons travel slower than red light electrons and interact more strongly and repel more electrons from a photocathode hence appear more energetic. Slow electrons have more electric force and fast electrons have more kinetic force.
Electrons liberating electrons? What are you talking about, exactly?
In my theory which you didn't read light is a fast moving electron.
So you agree that it’s not falsifiable. Good. It’s pseudoscience.
I am sure there are qualitative ways to disprove my theory but am skeptical of quantitative mathematical arguments based on traditional physics which are disproved if any of my predictions are correct.
-
The article says it is not known how rare are photon- photon interactions and more experiments are required.
Rare enough not to have been discovered until very recently.
Magnetic fields in particle accelerators concentrate electrons to high density and lower speed of electrons compared to laser could account for differences in occurrence.
According to your predictions, those electrons in that particle collider have to be moving at the same speed as gamma rays because they are gamma rays (they both have MeV energies). Since you say that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then you are saying that those electrons are actually moving faster than laser light.
Interestingly, the electrons were accelerated to this energy level in a figure 8-shaped accelerator. This means that it was possible for humans to magnetically deflect and accelerate electrons in a closed circuit all the way up to gamma ray energies even back in 1965. Since you think that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then your earlier claim that we don’t have the technology to visibly deflect light by a magnetic field because it moves too fast must be wrong. Either that, or your prediction that light is made of electrons is wrong. Which one is it?
Different speed of light, if exists and should be tested, disproved Maxwell's electromagnetic theory and your claim short wavelength implies high energy.
So you ignored the link I provided which showed that we know how to measure wavelengths, huh? Another way that we know that more energetic photons have shorter wavelengths is because more energetic photons can give better resolution and see smaller structures than lower energy photons in imaging. X-ray microscopes can see objects significantly smaller than optical microscopes due to their much smaller wavelengths.
The length of antennae is also strongly dependent on the designed wavelength it is supposed to receive. The antenna only works if it is a substantial fraction of the wavelength’s size. Do you really think that scientists and engineers are morons that don’t know how to figure these things out?
If any of my predictions are correct a new theory will have to devised to explain how positron annihilation spectroscopy and emission tomography work.
You might as well be saying, “If my prediction that electricity doesn’t exist is correct a new theory will have to be devised to explain how the power grid works”. The fact that we can and have detected gamma ray emission from electron-positron annihilation is how we know that your predictions are not correct. The annihilation of positron-electron bound systems into gamma rays has been detected in devices specifically designed to measure them. That’s how the half-lives of positronium were experimentally determined.
If any of my predictions are correct the values you state here will change.
The mass and charge of the electron is known from measurements. You can also know the strength for the electric and magnetic fields used to deflect the cathode ray. When you have this information, you can calculate the speed of the cathode rays. This is all based on verified knowledge, not guesses or theory. Go read the part of this link titled “Making the beam go straight” to see how it is done: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys1/labs/lab3.pdf (http://www.dartmouth.edu/~phys1/labs/lab3.pdf)
Get a kick from another electron in the atom.
The electrons in the gas atoms are already in their ground state. They don’t have any extra energy to donate to the cathode rays.
In my theory when a light electron is absorbed by an atom the atom becomes excited and more negative for a fraction of a second and the light electron quickly emitted.
All you have after the absorption is an electron with higher energy than before. Electrons don’t become more negatively charged just because they have higher energy.
In my theory blue light electrons travel slower than red light electrons and interact more strongly and repel more electrons from a photocathode hence appear more energetic.
“Appear” more energetic? Either it is more energetic or it isn’t. Energy is objectively measurable.
Slow electrons have more electric force and fast electrons have more kinetic force.
That makes no sense. Do you somehow think that the field around electrons becomes weaker when they go faster? Otherwise, fast electrons should have just as much "electric force" (whatever that means) as slow ones because they have the same charge.
In my theory which you didn't read light is a fast moving electron.
Which is impossible. Photons can have arbitrarily low energy levels, whereas there is a limit to how low an electron’s energy can be. Even if an electron is sitting (relatively) still, it has an energy of 511,000 eV. This corresponds to the measured value of the electron’s rest mass. Even visible light has an energy significantly lower than this value (1.8 eV for red photons). That makes red photons more than 280,000 times lower in energy than even stationary electrons can be. So photons cannot possibly be electrons.
I am sure there are qualitative ways to disprove my theory
Then list them.
but am skeptical of quantitative mathematical arguments based on traditional physics which are disproved if any of my predictions are correct.
I’d call it ignorance more than skepticism.
-
As I understand
energy = work
work = force * distance
force = mass * acceleration
Are any of the energy values you are using derived from mass ? If yes and weight decreases at increasing temperature in vacuum a new definition of energy will have to be revised and could falsify your energy values.
According to your predictions, those electrons in that particle collider have to be moving at the same speed as gamma rays because they are gamma rays (they both have MeV energies). Since you say that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then you are saying that those electrons are actually moving faster than laser light.
No, final magnetic deflection could accelerate electrons to higher speeds.
Another way that we know that more energetic photons have shorter wavelengths is because more energetic photons can give better resolution and see smaller structures than lower energy photons in imaging. X-ray microscopes can see objects significantly smaller than optical microscopes due to their much smaller wavelengths.
I wonder if smaller deflection of X-rays when pass near nuclei of atoms inside materials could explain better resolution of images.
The mass and charge of the electron is known from measurements.
I suspect weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum will have something to say about this statement.
The electrons in the gas atoms are already in their ground state. They don’t have any extra energy to donate to the cathode rays.
They are still moving very fast and could push an absorbed electron to accelerate.
“Appear” more energetic? Either it is more energetic or it isn’t. Energy is objectively measurable.
Blue light knocks more electrons from a photocathode than red light and generates higher current.
That makes no sense. Do you somehow think that the field around electrons becomes weaker when they go faster? Otherwise, fast electrons should have just as much "electric force" (whatever that means) as slow ones because they have the same charge.
A faster moving electron exerts its charge for shorter time than slower moving electron.
Are all these long scrolls of yours an attempt to convince the reader to forget about experiments ?
-
As I understand
energy = work
work = force * distance
force = mass * acceleration
Are any of the energy values you are using derived from mass ? If yes and weight decreases at increasing temperature in vacuum a new definition of energy will have to be revised and could falsify your energy values.
Those energy values were derived from direct measurements. Your “weight decreases at increasing temperature” is of no relevance.
No, final magnetic deflection could accelerate electrons to higher speeds.
No duh. Of course the magnetic fields are making them move faster. That’s the entire function of a particle accelerator. That’s how they got them to MeV energies to begin with.
I wonder if smaller deflection of X-rays when pass near nuclei of atoms inside materials could explain better resolution of images.
No, because there is no direct correlation between deflection and wavelength. We’ve been through this before.
I suspect weight reduction at increasing temperature in vacuum will have something to say about this statement.
It absolutely will not. The mass and charge of electrons is known from measurements, not just theory.
They are still moving very fast and could push an absorbed electron to accelerate.
Electrons don’t work that way. In order for an electron in orbit around an atom to accelerate another electron, it would have to be able to donate some of its energy to that electron. If the atom is already in its ground state, then it can’t go any lower. It can’t donate energy that it doesn’t have to give in the first place.
Blue light knocks more electrons from a photocathode than red light and generates higher current.
Since when was I talking about photocathodes? I was talking about cathode ray tubes.
A faster moving electron exerts its charge for shorter time than slower moving electron.
So what? A fast-moving rubber ball is in contact with a wall for a shorter period of time than a slow-moving ball too. The fast-moving ball exerts more force anyway.
Are all these long scrolls of yours an attempt to convince the reader to forget about experiments ?
It’s an attempt to demonstrate to you that your claims are nonsense.
You’ve also ignored a lot of things that I said in my prior post. How about going back and addressing them?
-
yes and weight decreases at increasing temperature in vacuum a new definition of energy will have to be revised and could falsify your energy values.
So, if a "made up thing" happens then we will need to change our understanding of physics.
What if that "made up thing" does not happen?
Do you understand why we don't need to change?
-
Those energy values were derived from direct measurements. Your “weight decreases at increasing temperature” is of no relevance.
The energy values you provided are derived from E=mc2 or/and Maxwell's wave equations. E=mc2 predicts W (weight) should increase tiny immeasurable bit at increasing T (temperature) i.e. no change. Maxwell waves theory describes heat as massless and predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum too. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves both equations and values provided.
It absolutely will not. The mass and charge of electrons is known from measurements, not just theory.
What is the mass of an object weighed at different T in vacuum ?
No, because there is no direct correlation between deflection and wavelength. We’ve been through this before.
If the central predictions of my theory are correct a new way to describe X-ray diffraction imaging using deflection will be required.
Electrons don’t work that way. In order for an electron in orbit around an atom to accelerate another electron, it would have to be able to donate some of its energy to that electron. If the atom is already in its ground state, then it can’t go any lower. It can’t donate energy that it doesn’t have to give in the first place.
In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.
So what? A fast-moving rubber ball is in contact with a wall for a shorter period of time than a slow-moving ball too. The fast-moving ball exerts more force anyway.
A fast moving electron colliding with a stationary electron will eject the stationary electron at a faster speed than a slow moving electron. If however a fast moving electron passes near a stationary electron I predict the stationary electron will move less than when a slower electron passes near because a slower electron will exert electric repulsive force for longer. In my theory gamma and X-rays electrons travel fastest and could ionize atoms by direct collisions while optical electrons travel slower and discharge a photocathode by electric repulsion.
-
In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.
Then you don't know what a ground state is.
In the real world, electrons in the ground state are in motion, but can't provide energy to another body.
-
@Yaniv, I'm still waiting for you address the following statements that I have already made. Answer them and then I will address your most recent post:
Interestingly, the electrons were accelerated to this energy level in a figure 8-shaped accelerator. This means that it was possible for humans to magnetically deflect and accelerate electrons in a closed circuit all the way up to gamma ray energies even back in 1965. Since you think that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then your earlier claim that we don’t have the technology to visibly deflect light by a magnetic field because it moves too fast must be wrong. Either that, or your prediction that light is made of electrons is wrong. Which one is it?
The length of antennae is also strongly dependent on the designed wavelength it is supposed to receive. The antenna only works if it is a substantial fraction of the wavelength’s size. Do you really think that scientists and engineers are morons that don’t know how to figure these things out?
You might as well be saying, “If my prediction that electricity doesn’t exist is correct a new theory will have to be devised to explain how the power grid works”. The fact that we can and have detected gamma ray emission from electron-positron annihilation is how we know that your predictions are not correct. The annihilation of positron-electron bound systems into gamma rays has been detected in devices specifically designed to measure them. That’s how the half-lives of positronium were experimentally determined.
All you have after the absorption is an electron with higher energy than before. Electrons don’t become more negatively charged just because they have higher energy.
Which is impossible. Photons can have arbitrarily low energy levels, whereas there is a limit to how low an electron’s energy can be. Even if an electron is sitting (relatively) still, it has an energy of 511,000 eV. This corresponds to the measured value of the electron’s rest mass. Even visible light has an energy significantly lower than this value (1.8 eV for red photons). That makes red photons more than 280,000 times lower in energy than even stationary electrons can be. So photons cannot possibly be electrons.
No duh. Of course the magnetic fields are making them move faster. That’s the entire function of a particle accelerator. That’s how they got them to MeV energies to begin with.
-
Interestingly, the electrons were accelerated to this energy level in a figure 8-shaped accelerator. This means that it was possible for humans to magnetically deflect and accelerate electrons in a closed circuit all the way up to gamma ray energies even back in 1965. Since you think that gamma rays move faster than visible light, then your earlier claim that we don’t have the technology to visibly deflect light by a magnetic field because it moves too fast must be wrong. Either that, or your prediction that light is made of electrons is wrong. Which one is it?
My theory predicts light should be deflected by a strong magnetic field. I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
The length of antennae is also strongly dependent on the designed wavelength it is supposed to receive. The antenna only works if it is a substantial fraction of the wavelength’s size. Do you really think that scientists and engineers are morons that don’t know how to figure these things out?
I don't understand this comment. In my theory there is a correlation between speed and wavelength (linear or exponential) for an emitter and a receiver at a fixed distance. Other factors can also effect wavelength such as relative motion doppler shifts and in antennas the frequency of alternate current which determines the wavelength of radiation.
You might as well be saying, “If my prediction that electricity doesn’t exist is correct a new theory will have to be devised to explain how the power grid works”. The fact that we can and have detected gamma ray emission from electron-positron annihilation is how we know that your predictions are not correct. The annihilation of positron-electron bound systems into gamma rays has been detected in devices specifically designed to measure them. That’s how the half-lives of positronium were experimentally determined.
In my theory gamma electrons are liberated during nuclear decay.
All you have after the absorption is an electron with higher energy than before. Electrons don’t become more negatively charged just because they have higher energy.
In my theory when an atom absorbs a light electron it becomes excited and less positive (more negative) for a fraction of a second and quickly ejects the light electron returning to its positive ground state.
-
I'm still waiting for you to get to those last two quotes...
-
Which is impossible. Photons can have arbitrarily low energy levels, whereas there is a limit to how low an electron’s energy can be. Even if an electron is sitting (relatively) still, it has an energy of 511,000 eV. This corresponds to the measured value of the electron’s rest mass. Even visible light has an energy significantly lower than this value (1.8 eV for red photons). That makes red photons more than 280,000 times lower in energy than even stationary electrons can be. So photons cannot possibly be electrons.
The claim a stationary electron has 511,000 eV energy is derived using E=mc2 which predicts W should not change at increasing T in vacuum.
No duh. Of course the magnetic fields are making them move faster. That’s the entire function of a particle accelerator. That’s how they got them to MeV energies to begin with.
I suspect particle accelerators accelerate electrons to light speeds.
Are these like conditions to conclude experiments to test traditional physics ?
-
The energy values you provided are derived from E=mc2 or/and Maxwell's wave equations. E=mc2 predicts W (weight) should increase tiny immeasurable bit at increasing T (temperature) i.e. no change. Maxwell waves theory describes heat as massless and predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum too. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves both equations and values provided.
The charge-to-mass ratio for the electron was measured in 1897 by J.J Thomson by measuring the deflection of cathode rays by electric and magnetic fields. The electric charge on the electron was measured in 1909 with Millikan and Fletcher’s oil drop experiment. The mass of the electron can be computed from those two values. Neither one of these measurements required any degree of reliance on E=mc2.
Maxwell’s equations can be verified firsthand in the laboratory and those equations are exactly the kind of thing that are tested in college laboratory classes. If they are not correct, then the amount of error present must be so small that it cannot be detected. If such is the case, then the amount of error in those energy values I presented must also be extremely small and therefore irrelevant to my arguments anyway. So what if an electron’s mass or an electrons charge is 0.001% higher or lower than expected? That does nothing to change the fact that cathode rays are at X-ray energy levels or that visible light has energy thousands of times lower than a stationary electron.
What is the mass of an object weighed at different T in vacuum ?
Temperature is not a property of individual subatomic particles. The only way you could describe an electron as “hot” would be to say that it is moving quickly, but you already said that your definition of temperature doesn’t involve a particle’s speed. So whatever happens to an object’s mass at raised temperature is irrelevant to the measured mass of an electron.
If the central predictions of my theory are correct a new way to describe X-ray diffraction imaging using deflection will be required.
You are aware that wavelengths can be measured directly, aren’t you? The Michelson interferometer allowed us to do exactly that way back in the late 1800’s. Here’s a video explaining how interferometers can be used to measure the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation: . So don’t assume that just because someone tells you that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light that it is just a prediction based on modern theory: it’s verifiable with this device.
We can directly measure the wavelengths of X-rays with Bragg’s spectrometer: . If you need further clarification on how it works, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law)
In my theory ground electrons are in motion and could provide a force to accelerate an absorbed electron.
Please describe to me how an electron in its ground state can donate non-existent energy to another electron. In order for one electron to gain energy in the interaction, the other electron will have to lose energy and therefore enter an orbital that is in a lower energy state than the one it is already in. In an atom or molecule in its ground state, the very lowest energy electron orbitals are already completely filled. There are no lower orbitals that they can possibly enter. This is why they cannot lose energy and therefore cannot donate energy to something else.
A fast moving electron colliding with a stationary electron will eject the stationary electron at a faster speed than a slow moving electron. If however a fast moving electron passes near a stationary electron I predict the stationary electron will move less than when a slower electron passes near because a slower electron will exert electric repulsive force for longer. In my theory gamma and X-rays electrons travel fastest and could ionize atoms by direct collisions while optical electrons travel slower and discharge a photocathode by electric repulsion.
And what if you are shining beams of light, x-rays or whatever directly at a wall that is perpendicular to the beam? The photons with more energy will have to exert more force on that wall (assuming the wall is opaque to all wavelengths used). The impact is head-on, not a glancing blow.
My theory predicts light should be deflected by a strong magnetic field. I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
You said, and I quote:
In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments.
So which is it? Can scientists detectably deflect light with magnetic fields or not?
I don't understand this comment. In my theory there is a correlation between speed and wavelength (linear or exponential) for an emitter and a receiver at a fixed distance. Other factors can also effect wavelength such as relative motion doppler shifts and in antennas the frequency of alternate current which determines the wavelength of radiation.
Which has nothing to do with what I said. There is a correlation between effective antenna size and the wavelength it can pick up. How the waves are generated is irrelevant. Antenna that are much smaller than the wavelength they are trying to detect are not effective.
In my theory gamma electrons are liberated during nuclear decay.
Positronium does not have any nucleons in it and therefore this comment is irrelevant. The energy level of the gamma rays emitted by positronium decay exactly matches what is predicted by E=mc2 (0.511 MeV), so scientists know if the gamma rays produced come from positronium decay or elsewhere.
In my theory when an atom absorbs a light electron it becomes excited and less positive (more negative) for a fraction of a second and quickly ejects the light electron returning to its positive ground state.
So then you are saying that charge on an electron changes in accordance with its energy state. If this was true, then more energetic beams of cathode rays would be deflected much more than expected by magnetic fields, because the charge on the electrons would be much higher than expected. Likewise, electrons in particle accelerators would not behave as expected if their charge changed with energy levels (the strength of their electric charge would affect how much they are deflected by magnetic fields). Given that no such news of the incredible discovery of changing electric charge on the electrons has been made, these phenomena must not occur and therefore your claim is wrong.
The claim a stationary electron has 511,000 eV energy is derived using E=mc2 which predicts W should not change at increasing T in vacuum.
It’s directly measurable and verifiable. The two gamma rays given off by electron-positron annihilation each have 511 keV of energy, which is exactly what you’d expect given E=mc2. It’s just another validation that E=mc2 is correct. Even if E=mc2 was not true in some particular case, it absolutely, provably is in this one.
I suspect particle accelerators accelerate electrons to light speeds.
That would make your earlier comment speculating that electrons behave differently than lasers because they move more slowly wrong then, wouldn’t it?
Are these like conditions to conclude experiments to test traditional physics ?
We conduct experiments to test traditional physics all the time.
-
The charge-to-mass ratio for the electron was measured in 1897 by J.J Thomson by measuring the deflection of cathode rays by electric and magnetic fields. The electric charge on the electron was measured in 1909 with Millikan and Fletcher’s oil drop experiment. The mass of the electron can be computed from those two values. Neither one of these measurements required any degree of reliance on E=mc2.
Maxwell’s equations can be verified firsthand in the laboratory and those equations are exactly the kind of thing that are tested in college laboratory classes. If they are not correct, then the amount of error present must be so small that it cannot be detected. If such is the case, then the amount of error in those energy values I presented must also be extremely small and therefore irrelevant to my arguments anyway. So what if an electron’s mass or an electrons charge is 0.001% higher or lower than expected? That does nothing to change the fact that cathode rays are at X-ray energy levels or that visible light has energy thousands of times lower than a stationary electron.
J.J Thomson showed the point at which electric and magnetic forces balance. My theory does not require addition of mass to explain the results. In my theory there is no such thing as mass all explained with charge.
You say "visible light has energy thousands of times lower than a stationary electron". Is this statement not derived from E=mc2 ?
Maxwell equations work well for optical light and radio but if any of my predictions are true Maxwell equations are disproved and should not be applied to all types radiation.
Temperature is not a property of individual subatomic particles. The only way you could describe an electron as “hot” would be to say that it is moving quickly, but you already said that your definition of temperature doesn’t involve a particle’s speed. So whatever happens to an object’s mass at raised temperature is irrelevant to the measured mass of an electron.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and as I understand is used to construct the constant in Coulomb's law which was used by J.J Thomson and Millikan to find the mass of an electron ?
You are aware that wavelengths can be measured directly, aren’t you? The Michelson interferometer allowed us to do exactly that way back in the late 1800’s. Here’s a video explaining how interferometers can be used to measure the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation:
. So don’t assume that just because someone tells you that blue light has a shorter wavelength than red light that it is just a prediction based on modern theory: it’s verifiable with this device.
In my theory blue light also has a shorter wavelength than red light. I derived this from diffraction grating.
We can directly measure the wavelengths of X-rays with Bragg’s spectrometer:
. If you need further clarification on how it works, look here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bragg%27s_law
This is not an example of direct measurements of X-ray diffraction. This experiment directly measures current and angle of a mineral. If the central predictions of my theory are true this result will have to be explained with reflection.
Please describe to me how an electron in its ground state can donate non-existent energy to another electron. In order for one electron to gain energy in the interaction, the other electron will have to lose energy and therefore enter an orbital that is in a lower energy state than the one it is already in. In an atom or molecule in its ground state, the very lowest energy electron orbitals are already completely filled. There are no lower orbitals that they can possibly enter. This is why they cannot lose energy and therefore cannot donate energy to something else.
In my theory when an atom absorbs a light electron excess repulsive forces between electrons in the atom could eject the electron at an accelerated speed. The remaining electrons will lose speed and pick it up from other particles in the environment.
And what if you are shining beams of light, x-rays or whatever directly at a wall that is perpendicular to the beam? The photons with more energy will have to exert more force on that wall (assuming the wall is opaque to all wavelengths used). The impact is head-on, not a glancing blow.
I think in this example faster electrons should transfer more kinetic energy (speed) to the wall.
My theory predicts light should be deflected by a strong magnetic field. I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
You said, and I quote:
Quote from: Yaniv on 18/11/2017 07:31:32
In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments.
So which is it? Can scientists detectably deflect light with magnetic fields or not?
My theory predicts light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields generated in particle accelerators. The word "appear" used earlier was in response to an experiment with a weaker magnetic field.
Positronium does not have any nucleons in it and therefore this comment is irrelevant. The energy level of the gamma rays emitted by positronium decay exactly matches what is predicted by E=mc2 (0.511 MeV), so scientists know if the gamma rays produced come from positronium decay or elsewhere.
Do you take this match as a conclusive proof E=mc2 is correct ?
So then you are saying that charge on an electron changes in accordance with its energy state. If this was true, then more energetic beams of cathode rays would be deflected much more than expected by magnetic fields, because the charge on the electrons would be much higher than expected. Likewise, electrons in particle accelerators would not behave as expected if their charge changed with energy levels (the strength of their electric charge would affect how much they are deflected by magnetic fields). Given that no such news of the incredible discovery of changing electric charge on the electrons has been made, these phenomena must not occur and therefore your claim is wrong.
No. I didn't say the charge of an electron changes in accordance with its energy state. I said the charge of an atom changes in accordance to its energy states.
It’s directly measurable and verifiable. The two gamma rays given off by electron-positron annihilation each have 511 keV of energy, which is exactly what you’d expect given E=mc2. It’s just another validation that E=mc2 is correct. Even if E=mc2 was not true in some particular case, it absolutely, provably is in this one.
Do you suggest this validation proves E=mc2 correct and no other experiments should challenge this equation ?
That would make your earlier comment speculating that electrons behave differently than lasers because they move more slowly wrong then, wouldn’t it?
I suspect electron collisions in particle accelerators are more common than photon-photon interactions because the magnetic field in the accelerator keeps electrons densely packed together and may have other effects on the behavior of electrons.
We conduct experiments to test traditional physics all the time.
Really ? You seem to ignore the title of this thread.
-
This is a fruitless effort. I give up.
-
Those that are too lazy to actually study science have to make things up to fill the gap. They end up putting more effort in than if they had simply gone away and borrowed some textbooks from the inter library loan service. I read Schrödinger's autobiography that way. But getting up out of the armchair or their bed is far too difficult.
-
This is a fruitless effort. I give up.
Very wise. Go back to discussing with The Box, he’s much more logical :)
-
I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
OK, presented with video evidence that light is not deflected by a magnetic field, you predict light "should be deflected by strong magnetic fields".
Why?
Why do you ignore the evidence of your own eyes? (Not to mention a few hundred years of scientific observation)
Seriously, when someone tells you that getting hit by a car is a "bad thing" (for which we only have roughly 100 years of supporting data), do you walk out into traffic?
-
Why do you ignore the evidence of your own eyes? (Not to mention a few hundred years of scientific observation)
You only have to look at the opening page of his paper to discover that to expect sane discussion is pointless:
“a positron and an electron are attracted to each other and interact to form a neutral particle named "neutrino". A simultaneous interactions between two positrons and one electron form a "proton" and a simultaneous interaction between two electrons and one positron forms an "anti-proton". A proton and an anti-proton interact to form a "neutron"”
-
I just don't see the point. I have spent years learning how things actually work and it is so rewarding to know that the effort is paying off. These guys expend so much effort on nonsense. Here I am waving from the parapets. Wish you were here.
-
I watched a few Youtube videos showing laser light is not deflected by a magnet but predict light should be deflected by strong magnetic fields.
OK, presented with video evidence that light is not deflected by a magnetic field, you predict light "should be deflected by strong magnetic fields"
My theory predicts light should deflect by strong electric and magnetic fields (videos watched showed weak electric and magnetic fields). I read photons are deflected by strong electric fields of nuclei (Delbruck scattering) and magnetized materials also effect the behavior of light. Could electric and magnetic forces at short microscopic distances be stronger than forces generated in moderate laboratory experiments ?
-
So, because you have seen that magnetic fields don't bend light and you read that electric field gradients do, you think that a magnetic field will bend light.
It still makes no sense.
The closest you get is this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect
-
The closest you get is this sort of thing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_effect
This video describes work of scientists attempting to curve light under magnetic fields (min 6).
-
The audio is terrible but as far as I can tell they said that could get light to curve in a material if they can generate the right conditions.
There's no evidence that they can do so.
And getting light to curve isn't new- a bit of glass will do it.
-
The audio is terrible but as far as I can tell they said that could get light to curve in a material if they can generate the right conditions.
There's no evidence that they can do so.
And getting light to curve isn't new- a bit of glass will do it.
This is another link claiming photons are deflected by magnetic fields.
https://www.photonics.com/a52202/A_Magnetic_Field_for_Photons
-
Did you notice that they keep referring to "synthetic magnetism".
That's because real magnetism doesn't deflect light.
So your claim "photons are deflected by magnetic fields." is false.
Why don't you give up on this.
Every idea you have put forward has been shown not to work.
-
Did you notice that they keep referring to "synthetic magnetism".
That's because real magnetism doesn't deflect light.
So your claim "photons are deflected by magnetic fields." is false.
Why don't you give up on this.
Every idea you have put forward has been shown not to work.
What is the difference between synthetic and real magnetic fields ?
My theory predicts light should be deflected by strong magnetic (and electric) fields and I would like to see precision deflection measurements of a laser beam passing through strong magnetic and electric fields.
-
What is the difference between synthetic and real magnetic fields ?
My theory predicts light should be deflected by strong magnetic (and electric) fields and I would like to see precision deflection measurements of a laser beam passing through strong magnetic and electric fields.
The difference is that a synthetic magnetic field isn't actually a magnetic field.
Your theory is easy to test, If light was perturbed by strong magnetic fields then people would see the effect when doing MRI scans. (Spoiler alert- they don't) and this frog would look strange (spoiler alert- it doesn't).
So we know from many experiments- including the one that you cited in the first place, that you are actually wrong.
Why can't you accept that simple fact?
-
The difference is that a synthetic magnetic field isn't actually a magnetic field.
The article reads "To build its device, the team developed a grid of tiny cavities etched in silicon, forming the photonic crystal. By precisely applying electric current to the grid, the scientists can control, or harmonically tune, the photonic crystal to synthesize magnetism and exert virtual force upon photons". This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.
Your theory is easy to test, If light was perturbed by strong magnetic fields then people would see the effect when doing MRI scans.
Deflection of light by an MRI magnetic field may be too small to notice. Placing many magnets in sequence such as in particle accelerators could increase the effect.
So we know from many experiments- including the one that you cited in the first place, that you are actually wrong.
Results required.
-
Does your model predict that objects with a net negative charge should weigh less than those with a net positive charge?
-
Does your model predict that objects with a net negative charge should weigh less than those with a net positive charge?
In my theory there are no negatively charged materials, only positive. The theory predicts weight should decrease when positively charged materials absorb negative charges (heat or electric charges) and become less positive.
-
This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.
This sounds nothing like an electromagnet.
They describe very clearly what they did and it doesn’t involve magnetism. They only call it synthetic because it mimics the effect of a magnetic field on a charged particle, but they are not suggesting it is a magnetic field.
It would be best if you could learn some real physics so you could correctly read the research reports.
-
In my theory there are no negatively charged materials, only positive.
Surely that isn't the case? If we look at your model of atoms, a diatomic hydrogen molecule has equal numbers of electrons and positrons so it would have to be neutral. As you heat up these hydrogen molecules, they gain more electrons as they get hotter and hotter so they would have to have a net negative charge.
The theory predicts weight should decrease when positively charged materials absorb negative charges (heat or electric charges) and become less positive.
That's pretty much what I was getting at, yes. It sounds like you could make some good mathematical predictions about just how much weight should decrease as a piece of metal gains or loses negative charge, since negative charge comes in discrete, quantifiable amounts. I may try to do that myself when I get the time. However, in order to do this, I will probably need to know why a proton weighs almost 2,000 times more than an electron if the components of a proton are only two positrons and an electron. What mechanism in your model accounts for all the extra mass?
-
Surely that isn't the case? If we look at your model of atoms, a diatomic hydrogen molecule has equal numbers of electrons and positrons so it would have to be neutral. As you heat up these hydrogen molecules, they gain more electrons as they get hotter and hotter so they would have to have a net negative charge.
A population of hydrogen molecules could consist of cationic and neutral molecules. As more negative heat particles are added more cationic molecules are converted to neutral molecules and the positive charge of the population and weight decreases. As more negative heat particle are added at some point there will be more negative than positive particles in the volume and the charge of the volume will become negative.
It sounds like you could make some good mathematical predictions about just how much weight should decrease as a piece of metal gains or loses negative charge, since negative charge comes in discrete, quantifiable amounts.
I don't know how you can make quantitative predictions without results of experiments. If you do the experiment and find say 1 microgram drop in weight per 1 calorie absorbed you can begin to make quantitative predictions. Also interesting is to determine how many negative heat particles are found in 1 calorie.
I will probably need to know why a proton weighs almost 2,000 times more than an electron if the components of a proton are only two positrons and an electron. What mechanism in your model accounts for all the extra mass?
A proton deflects less than an electron in a mass spectrometer. Neutrons are not deflected. In my theory a proton could deflect less than an electron because some of the force is used to drag the neutral constituent of the proton.
-
The article reads "To build its device, the team developed a grid of tiny cavities etched in silicon, forming the photonic crystal. By precisely applying electric current to the grid, the scientists can control, or harmonically tune, the photonic crystal to synthesize magnetism and exert virtual force upon photons". This sounds to me something like an electromagnet.
If it sounds like an electromagnet to you then that just shows that you also don't understand electromagnets.
Deflection of light by an MRI magnetic field may be too small to notice. Placing many magnets in sequence such as in particle accelerators could increase the effect.
MRI magnets are some of the biggest strongest magnets we have; if you can't spot the effect with these then you are probably not going to see it elsewhere.
Results required.
No the results are nor required because they were already posted- initially by you.
What is "required" is that you pay attention to the results.In my theory there are no negatively charged materials, only positive.
Well, we know that's wrong by simple experiment.
So what you keep dishonestly referring to as a "theory" is nonsense on yet another basis.
Also interesting is to determine how many negative heat particles are found in 1 calorie.
Zero, (which is quite an interesting number) seems like a very good assumption.
A proton deflects less than an electron in a mass spectrometer. Neutrons are not deflected. In my theory a proton could deflect less than an electron because some of the force is used to drag the neutral constituent of the proton.
Deflection of light by an MRI magnetic field may be too small to notice. Placing many magnets in sequence such as in particle accelerators could increase the effect.
I presume you don't understand antiprotons and positrons.
-
.
What is "required" is that you pay attention to the results.
@Bored chemist - this lack of attention to previous evidence seems to be a standard response and replies which merely “keep dishonestly referring to as a "theory" is nonsense on yet another basis”; all makes me think there is no one at the other end listening, which is why i no longer feel it is useful to respond.
-
.
What is "required" is that you pay attention to the results.
@Bored chemist - this lack of attention to previous evidence seems to be a standard response and replies which merely “keep dishonestly referring to as a "theory" is nonsense on yet another basis”; all makes me think there is no one at the other end listening, which is why i no longer feel it is useful to respond.
In cases like this I respond (some would say "bloody mindedly") in order that the voice of reason has the last word.
That way, any visitors to the page who are less familiar with science won't get misled into thinking that the idea might be right because nobody said it wasn't.
-
Theories are ten a penny. Theories with numbers are very rare because they tend only to live long enough for someone to disprove them. Theories without numbers are worthless.
-
Theories are ten a penny. Theories with numbers are very rare because they tend only to live long enough for someone to disprove them. Theories without numbers are worthless.
Scientific theories are as rare as hen's teeth.
Made up drossy hypotheses masquerading as theories are ten-a-penny.
-
A population of hydrogen molecules could consist of cationic and neutral molecules. As more negative heat particles are added more cationic molecules are converted to neutral molecules and the positive charge of the population and weight decreases. As more negative heat particle are added at some point there will be more negative than positive particles in the volume and the charge of the volume will become negative.
Alright then.
I don't know how you can make quantitative predictions without results of experiments. If you do the experiment and find say 1 microgram drop in weight per 1 calorie absorbed you can begin to make quantitative predictions. Also interesting is to determine how many negative heat particles are found in 1 calorie.
I'll have to think about this some, but I'll let you know if I can indeed think of some quantifiable predictions. Knowing the basic properties of some materials in itself might be useful here.
A proton deflects less than an electron in a mass spectrometer. Neutrons are not deflected. In my theory a proton could deflect less than an electron because some of the force is used to drag the neutral constituent of the proton.
That causes it to look almost 2,000 times heavier than a single electron?
I actually did spend time reading your website and I've come to realize that your model doesn't necessarily predict a violation of conservation of mass. It predicts that weight should change at increasing temperature, but weight and mass are not the same thing. A mass of one kilogram will have a different weight on Mars than it will on Earth, for example. Yes, I know your model doesn't have mass in the conventional sense because it says that gravity is actually an effect of electromagnetism. However, I'm talking about inertial mass, not gravitational mass. Inertial mass is a measure of resistance to acceleration. Even if you hold that inertial mass is an electromagnetic effect, it's still a measurable and important quantity. Adding extra electrons to an object as it becomes hotter might make that object less strongly attracted to the Earth and therefore lighter, but those extra added electrons should still make the inertial mass of the hot object increase because electrons have inertial mass.
So for further clarification for my investigation:
(1) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have equal inertial mass?
(2) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have electric charge that is equal and opposite in magnitude?
(3) Does your model have any problems with the accepted inertial mass and charge of the electron (that is, 9.1 x 10-31 kg and -1.6 x 10-19 C respectively)?
-
I actually did spend time reading your website and I've come to realize that your model doesn't necessarily predict a violation of conservation of mass. It predicts that weight should change at increasing temperature, but weight and mass are not the same thing. A mass of one kilogram will have a different weight on Mars than it will on Earth, for example.
Weight and mass are the same thing under the conditions of the proposed experiment carried at a fixed geographical position. W =mg. g is constant. Any change in W is a change in m.
Inertial mass is a measure of resistance to acceleration. Even if you hold that inertial mass is an electromagnetic effect, it's still a measurable and important quantity.
The natural motion of a neutron (any nuclear constituent consisting of equal number of positrons and electrons) passing through an electric field of equal and opposite charges is straight. A neutron passing through the field forms a dipole with positrons attracted to cathode and electrons attracted to anode at equal and opposite forces. An additional positron is required to change the straight trajectory of a neutron and may appear as resistance to acceleration.
(1) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have equal inertial mass?
I think positrons and electrons should react equally fast to changes in electric fields.
(2) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have electric charge that is equal and opposite in magnitude?
Yes, but could change if required in future.
(3) Does your model have any problems with the accepted inertial mass and charge of the electron (that is, 9.1 x 10-31 kg and -1.6 x 10-19 C respectively)?
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, implies W is a temperature-dependent variable. How a variable can be used to define constants ?
-
Maybe this go more smoothly if I try to understand one issue at a time.
Weight and mass are the same thing under the conditions of the proposed experiment carried at a fixed geographical position. W =mg. g is constant. Any change in W is a change in m.
So would that mean that a hot object should also be easier to push in a zero-gravity vacuum than a cold object? If that's true, then wouldn't that mean that electrons have to have negative inertial mass? If adding them to an object with positive inertial mass makes that object's inertial mass less positive then their inertial mass has to be negative. However, then we end up with a contradiction because you propose that all objects are made up of electrons and positrons (and you agree that they both have equal inertial mass). This means that all objects should have negative inertial mass too. How does your model account for this seeming contradiction?
-
So would that mean that a hot object should also be easier to push in a zero-gravity vacuum than a cold object?
Yes, because a hot object is less positive than a cold object and experiences weaker repulsive forces from all directions. Once the object is in motion changing its temperature should not affect its speed.
If that's true, then wouldn't that mean that electrons have to have negative inertial mass? If adding them to an object with positive inertial mass makes that object's inertial mass less positive then their inertial mass has to be negative. However, then we end up with a contradiction because you propose that all objects are made up of electrons and positrons (and you agree that they both have equal inertial mass). This means that all objects should have negative inertial mass too. How does your model account for this seeming contradiction?
I don't understand this part of the message.
-
I don't understand this part of the message.
That's unfortunate, because it's the bit where Kryptid totally nails your idea as impossible.
-
I don't understand this part of the message.
In order to break it down a bit, imagine that you put a single electron on a very, very sensitive scale. Does the scale register a positive weight?
-
In order to break it down a bit, imagine that you put a single electron on a very, very sensitive scale. Does the scale register a positive weight?
I imagine an electron placed on top of a pan should reduce weight of a pan and if placed at bottom of a pan should increase weight of the pan.
-
I imagine an electron placed on top of a pan should reduce weight of a pan and if placed at bottom of a pan should increase weight of the pan.
What accounts for this?
As an alternative scenario, imagine that I want to accelerate an electron that is in a zero-gravity vacuum. Do I have to expend energy in order to accelerate it? Will a positive force be necessary?
-
What accounts for this?
In my theory weight of the pan is determined by the difference between opposite positive repulsive forces acting on the pan, stronger repulsive force from above and weaker repulsive force from below. Placing an electron on top of pan will reduce the repulsive force from above and reduce the difference between forces acting on the pan and its weight. Placing an electron at bottom of the pan will reduce repulsive force from below and increase the difference between forces and weight.
As an alternative scenario, imagine that I want to accelerate an electron that is in a zero-gravity vacuum. Do I have to expend energy in order to accelerate it? Will a positive force be necessary?
The electron can be accelerated by applying a negative charge to push it or a positive charge to pull it.
-
In my theory weight of the pan is determined by the difference between opposite positive repulsive forces acting on the pan, stronger repulsive force from above and weaker repulsive force from below. Placing an electron on top of pan will reduce the repulsive force from above and reduce the difference between forces acting on the pan and its weight. Placing an electron at bottom of the pan will reduce repulsive force from below and increase the difference between forces and weight.
Hmm... so what happens if we add an electron to a single atom? Due to quantum mechanics and the wave nature of particles, the electron should be equally smeared over the surface of the atom and therefore equally above and below the atom at the same time. If the electron is equally spread out over the whole atom, then the weight should not change, right?
The electron can be accelerated by applying a negative charge to push it or a positive charge to pull it.
And that acceleration will give the electron a positive measure of kinetic energy?
-
Hmm... so what happens if we add an electron to a single atom? Due to quantum mechanics and the wave nature of particles, the electron should be equally smeared over the surface of the atom and therefore equally above and below the atom at the same time. If the electron is equally spread out over the whole atom, then the weight should not change, right?
Electrons are equally smeared all around an atom located far away from a gravitational force. Near a positively charged object such as the earth the distribution of electrons shifts towards the positive earth giving the atom polarity with a weak positive pole facing the earth and a strong positive pole facing away from the earth. The weak positive pole decreases the positive repulsive force from the direction of the earth and the strong positive pole increases the positive repulsive force from above pushing the atom towards the earth. The difference between forces gives weight to a stationary atom.
And that acceleration will give the electron a positive measure of kinetic energy?
Yes.
-
Electrons are equally smeared all around an atom located far away from a gravitational force. Near a positively charged object such as the earth the distribution of electrons shifts towards the positive earth
We know from x-ray diffraction experiments that this is not true.
Do you accept that your idea must be wrong because it relies on things that are known not to be true?
-
Electrons are equally smeared all around an atom located far away from a gravitational force. Near a positively charged object such as the earth the distribution of electrons shifts towards the positive earth giving the atom polarity with a weak positive pole facing the earth and a strong positive pole facing away from the earth. The weak positive pole decreases the positive repulsive force from the direction of the earth and the strong positive pole increases the positive repulsive force from above pushing the atom towards the earth. The difference between forces gives weight to a stationary atom.
Where does the "positive repulsive force from above" come from?
Yes.
Alright. Then we know from the kinetic energy equation Ek = (1/2)mv2 that electrons must have a positive mass. That means when we add electrons to a piece of matter (either by heating it or charging it), we are adding mass to that piece of matter because electrons have a positive mass value. This can only mean one of two things in light of your model:
(1) When objects absorb electrons by heating up, their weight decreases but their mass increases. This means that mass and weight cannot be the same thing in your model.
or
(2) Weight and mass are the same thing, which creates the paradox that adding electrons both increases and decreases the object's weight at the same time.
-
or
(2) Weight and mass are the same thing, which creates the paradox that adding electrons both increases and decreases the object's weight at the same time.
In other words the weight doesn’t change. Given he has already stated that weight and mass are same phenomenon.
More holes than a leaky sieve.
-
Where does the "positive repulsive force from above" come from?
In my theory the positive charge of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, rocks, dust and gas create a positive electric field that permeates the entire universe. The strength of the positive force exerted on an atom depends on the strength of the positive charge of its poles.
Then we know from the kinetic energy equation Ek = (1/2)mv2
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, disproves conservation of mass and this equation too.
In other words the weight doesn’t change.
Results required.
-
In my theory the positive charge of galaxies, stars, planets, moons, rocks, dust and gas create a positive electric field that permeates the entire universe. The strength of the positive force exerted on an atom depends on the strength of the positive charge of its poles.
I'll keep that in mind for future reference.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, disproves conservation of mass and this equation too.
Forgetting about actual equations and numbers for a moment, surely you agree with these common sense notions:
(1) It takes more energy to lift a 50 kilogram weight than it does to lift a 30 kilogram weight.
(2) It takes more energy to throw a baseball at 100 kilometers per hour than it does to throw it at 60 kilometers per hour.
(3) It takes more energy to climb 10 flights of stairs than it does to climb only 5 flights.
-
Results required.
No.
It's a deduction from what you are putting forward, if it's wrong that's because your idea is wrong (spoiler alert- your idea is wrong)
-
Forgetting about actual equations and numbers for a moment, surely you agree with these common sense notions:
(1) It takes more energy to lift a 50 kilogram weight than it does to lift a 30 kilogram weight.
(2) It takes more energy to throw a baseball at 100 kilometers per hour than it does to throw it at 60 kilometers per hour.
(3) It takes more energy to climb 10 flights of stairs than it does to climb only 5 flights.
I agree.
-
I agree.
These things show that there is a direct relationship between mass and the energy. The more mass, the more resistance to movement and therefore the more energy that is needed to overcome that resistance. It also takes more energy to stop a heavy mass from moving than it does a lighter mass if they are going the same speed. This means heavier objects must have more kinetic energy than lighter ones moving at the same speed. Inversely, lighter masses are easier to move and easier to stop than heavy ones. Go all the way to zero mass, and the resistance to movement also goes to zero and thus no energy is needed to move it or stop it. This also means zero kinetic energy.
Since you agree that moving electrons have kinetic energy, then they must also have mass. If they were massless, then it would take no energy to stop their movement and hence they would not carry any kinetic energy that needed to be overcome or opposed. Given that you say that electrons fall in a gravitational field, that points towards them having mass as well.
-
(2) Does your model predict that positrons and electrons have electric charge that is equal and opposite in magnitude?
The positive charge of a positron should be higher in magnitude than the negative charge of an electron. This gives a neutron a tiny positive charge (small fraction the charge of a positron). In weak gravitational fields a neutron forms a dipole with a stronger and weaker positive poles and falls at the same rate as other positively charged objects.
It also takes more energy to stop a heavy mass from moving than it does a lighter mass if they are going the same speed.
In my theory also more force is required to stop a heavy object than a lighter object travelling at the same speed because a heavier object is more positively charged and is pushed by a stronger force.
Inversely, lighter masses are easier to move and easier to stop than heavy ones.
In my theory also lighter objects are easier to move because they are fixed in place by weaker forces.
Since you agree that moving electrons have kinetic energy, then they must also have mass. If they were massless, then it would take no energy to stop their movement and hence they would not carry any kinetic energy that needed to be overcome or opposed. Given that you say that electrons fall in a gravitational field, that points towards them having mass as well.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum falsifies everything you write about mass and energy.
-
The positive charge of a positron should be higher in magnitude than the negative charge of an electron. This gives a neutron a tiny positive charge (small fraction the charge of a positron). In weak gravitational fields a neutron forms a dipole with a stronger and weaker positive poles and falls at the same rate as other positively charged objects.
That contradicts what you said earlier:
The natural motion of a neutron (any nuclear constituent consisting of equal number of positrons and electrons) passing through an electric field of equal and opposite charges is straight. A neutron passing through the field forms a dipole with positrons attracted to cathode and electrons attracted to anode at equal and opposite forces. An additional positron is required to change the straight trajectory of a neutron and may appear as resistance to acceleration.
You said that neutrons are not deflected by electric fields and that the forces on their constituent positrons and electrons are equal and opposite. The forces cannot be equal if the positron is more highly charged than the electron.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum falsifies everything you write about mass and energy.
So positrons and electrons are massless in your model.
-
Reading this thread, I am beginning to understand whence the Health and Safety Executive recruits its inspectors.
That is not a compliment.
-
Reading this thread, I am beginning to understand whence the Health and Safety Executive recruits its inspectors.
That is not a compliment.
It's probably libellous; you might want to accept that it's false.
-
That contradicts what you said earlier:
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.
You said that neutrons are not deflected by electric fields and that the forces on their constituent positrons and electrons are equal and opposite. The forces cannot be equal if the positron is more highly charged than the electron.
What I said earlier about neutrons is wrong and would like to correct myself here. The natural motion of a neutron passing through an electric field is almost straight. The positive charge of a neutron is a tiny fraction that of a positron or an electron and deflection is minimal and appear straight. The forces on a positron should be tiny bit stronger than forces on an electron.
So positrons and electrons are massless in your model.
Yes.
-
Okay, all of that is settled. Now, onto another matter. You say that all particles are actually composite particles made up of electrons and positrons. I would like to know if your model predicts that a single composite particle that is not bound inside of an atom (in other words, a free proton or a free neutron) has a temperature.
-
I would like to know if your model predicts that a single composite particle that is not bound inside of an atom (in other words, a free proton or a free neutron) has a temperature.
A free proton and a free neutron don't have temperature.
-
A free proton and a free neutron don't have temperature.
Good. Then that means that the mass of free particles is constant. Now I need to know how the mass of composite particles is determined from their structure. I already know from your page that protons are composed of two positrons and an electron (which I will write as P2E) and that a neutron is composed of three positrons and three electrons (which I will write as P3E3). That being said, I would like for you to tell me the composition of the subatomic particles listed below which have missing information. "P" is for positron and "E" is for electron:
Particle..............Structure......Mass
Proton................P2E..............938.27 MeV
Antiproton..........PE2..............938.27 MeV
Neutron.............P3E3............939.57 MeV
Muon.................P?E?............105.66 MeV
Tau....................P?E?............1,776.82 MeV
Omega Minus....P?E?............1,672.45 MeV
Neutral Pion......P?E?.............134.98 MeV
Positive Pion.....P?E?.............139.57 MeV
Z Boson.............P?E?.............91,187.6 MeV
In case you need to know what any of these are: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_particles)
-
Then that means that the mass of free particles is constant.
The charge of a free particle is constant.
Now I need to know how the mass of composite particles is determined from their structure.
The charge and speed of a free particle impacting a detector determine its energy.
Proton................P2E..............938.27 MeV
Antiproton..........PE2..............938.27 MeV
Neutron.............P3E3............939.57 MeV
Muon.................P?E?............105.66 MeV
Tau....................P?E?............1,776.82 MeV
Omega Minus....P?E?............1,672.45 MeV
Neutral Pion......P?E?.............134.98 MeV
Positive Pion.....P?E?.............139.57 MeV
Z Boson.............P?E?.............91,187.6 MeV
Proton...............P2E
Antiproton.........PE2
Neutron.............PE....and.....P2E2.....and......P3E3......exc
I am not sure about the rest of the particles in the list but can imagine other particles such as P2E3 and P3E2 and others emerging from the debris of nuclear collisions.
-
The charge and speed of a free particle impacting a detector determine its energy.
I'm talking about mass, not energy. You've insisted that E=mc2 and even Ek = (1/2)mv2 are incorrect, so surely you're not trying to equate mass with energy?
Proton...............P2E
Antiproton.........PE2
Neutron.............PE....and.....P2E2.....and......P3E3......exc
I am not sure about the rest of the particles in the list but can imagine other particles such as P2E3 and P3E2 and others emerging from the debris of nuclear collisions.
So your model can't explain the structures and masses of the other particles? That's a big problem.
-
I'm talking about mass, not energy. You've insisted that E=mc2 and even Ek = (1/2)mv2 are incorrect, so surely you're not trying to equate mass with energy?
I think to equate energy to electric current produced by a particle hitting an opaque detector. A fast particle should register a higher current than a slow particle of equal charge. Also a high charge particle should register a higher current than a low charge particle travelling at the same speed.So your model can't explain the structures and masses of the other particles? That's a big problem.
The figures provided are incorrect if any of the predictions raised in this thread are confirmed by experiments and should not be used to discard my theory.
-
I think to equate energy to electric current produced by a particle hitting an opaque detector. A fast particle should register a higher current than a slow particle of equal charge. Also a high charge particle should register a higher current than a low charge particle travelling at the same speed.
You're talking about energy again. I am not. You don't think mass changes with energy or velocity anyway so it's irrelevant to what I'm asking. So what makes one particle heavier than another? Will a particle with more charge weigh more than one with less charge? Will a particle containing more electrons be heavier than one with less electrons? Or do more positrons make it weigh more instead? Or is it the total of both that matters? Or is it a combination of the total number of electrons and positrons and the net charge on the composite particle that determines the mass?
The figures provided are incorrect if any of the predictions raised in this thread are confirmed by experiments and should not be used to discard my theory.
You already said that individual particles don't have a temperature and as such weight changing with temperature will do nothing to affect the known rest masses of individual subatomic particles.
-
So what makes one particle heavier than another? Will a particle with more charge weigh more than one with less charge? Will a particle containing more electrons be heavier than one with less electrons? Or do more positrons make it weigh more instead? Or is it the total of both that matters? Or is it a combination of the total number of electrons and positrons and the net charge on the composite particle that determines the mass?
Maybe (total number of positrons and electrons) to (charge) ratio ?
-
So what makes one particle heavier than another? Will a particle with more charge weigh more than one with less charge? Will a particle containing more electrons be heavier than one with less electrons? Or do more positrons make it weigh more instead? Or is it the total of both that matters? Or is it a combination of the total number of electrons and positrons and the net charge on the composite particle that determines the mass?
Maybe (total number of positrons and electrons) to (charge) ratio ?
So it is down to guessing now?
-
Maybe (total number of positrons and electrons) to (charge) ratio ?
Okay, let's see what that predicts:
(1) Electron: contains 1 electron + 0 positrons = 1 total. Total charge is -1. So, 1/1 = Mass of 1
(2) Positron: contains 0 electrons + 1 positron = 1 total. Total charge is slightly more than +1. So 1/slightly more than 1 = Mass of slightly less than 1
(3) Neutrino: contains 1 electron + 1 positron = 2 total. Total charge is slightly more than 0. So 2/slightly more than zero = Mass of some very, very big number (exact number depends on how much more charge positron has than electron)
(3) Proton: contains 1 electron + 2 positrons = 3 total. Total charge is slightly more than +1. So 3/slightly more than 1 = Mass of slightly less than 3
(4) Neutron (four particle version): contains 2 electrons + 2 positrons = 4 total. Total charge is slightly more than 0. So 4/slightly more than 0 = Mass of some very, very big number (higher than neutrino mass)
(5) Neutron (six particle version): contains 3 electrons + 3 positrons = 6 total. Total charge is slightly more than 0. So 6/slightly more than 0 = Mass of some very, very big number (higher than four-particle neutron)
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?
-
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.
-
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.
I'm not looking for mass-to-charge ratio, I'm just looking for mass. What determines mass alone?
-
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?
Sadly
The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles.
But don't let the facts spoil a good argument.
-
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.
-
I think you are looking for something that does not exist.
If that's true, then weight doesn't change at different temperatures because weight doesn't exist.
-
Do yourself a favour. Go away and read some textbooks. Stop just stabbing wildly in the dark. You aren't painting yourself in glory. Then once you know what you are talking about maybe you can have a positive conversation instead of a pointless argument. It is much more rewarding and I encourage you to try. You will surprise yourself.
-
Let me post an analogy:
Someone approaches a group of three lab researchers with a water canteen. Handing the canteen over to them, he requests that they perform some experiments to determine whether or not there is any water in the canteen.
Researcher 1 says, "My experiment will involve dropping a piece of sodium metal into the canteen. Since sodium reacts with water to give off heat and hydrogen gas, a thermal probe and hydrogen gas sensor placed in the canteen's opening can determine if there is water present." Researcher 1 performs the experiment, even jostling around the bit of sodium so that it can reach every part of the interior of canteen. No excess heat or hydrogen gas is detected. Researcher 1 concludes that there must not be any water in the canteen. An outside observer, however, protests the results of the experiment, saying, "We should look in the canteen. If water is confirmed visually, then it will render your results invalid and we will have to find a different way to interpret them."
Researcher 2 says, "My experiment will involve testing the electrical resistance of any substance inside the can. If the can is empty, we will measure a resistance consistent with air but not with water." The experiment is carried out by inserting probes from a multimeter into the canteen. The probes are maneuvered around inside of the canteen, measuring the resistance inside the canteen all the way to the bottom. The measured resistance is always consistent with that of air but never water. Researcher 2 concludes that there is no water in the can. The same outside observer from before comes back, "Your results are not definitive because you did not look inside the canteen. If you look inside the canteen and see that water is present, you will have to find a different way to interpret your results."
Researcher 3 says, "My experiment will involve lowering this piece of foam on a string into the canteen. It is covered in a hydrochromic ink that changes color from clear to blue when it becomes wet. If water is in the can, then the foam will turn blue." The experiment is performed. Even when the foam is lowered all the way to the bottom and then brought back up, it does not become blue. Researcher 3 concludes that there is no water in the canteen. For the final time, the outside observer insists, "Without looking inside the canteen, your results are meaningless. They will all become false if you see water in the canteen with your own eyes. Results required."
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.
-
Just for fun, let's go back to the original proposal for an experiment: heating a piece of metal in vacuo.
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.
-
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.
My theory predicts weight of a cooled metal should increase at decreasing temperature in vacuum. Heating and cooling the metal a few times in vacuum should eliminate effects of evaporates and other impurities.
The theory can therefore only be tested if it produces some numbers that are significantly larger than these experimental errors.
That's correct.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.
Results required.
-
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.
Results required.
The result is that you are looking even more foolish and proving you don’t understand even basic science and experimental methods.
If we presented an xray of a broken leg you would insist the leg be cut open in order for a diagnosis to be made.
Not sure even HSE will take you. Although i have a suspicion you are really a group of secondary school pupils who have rushed a lightweight paper together and are now having a laugh. No one else would keep parroting ‘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.
But, in fact, it is not.The natural motion of a neutron passing through an electric field is almost straight.
You regularly say "evidence required" to others (and the evidence is usually there)
Well, in this case, I'm saying it.
What evidence ids there for this laughable claim of yours?
-
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.
-
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 ?
-
Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?
Not unless that is what you plan to do. Your ideas have been published here for anyone to read and will not be removed.
As originator of this hypothesis it is your responsibility to carry out the experiment, or to convince a physics department that your ideas are worth testing, and return with the results.
#ResultsRequired
-
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?
-
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.
-
Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?
We have more than enough "results of experiments" to know that mass doesn't decrease at increasing temperatures. Expecting mass to decrease at increasing temperatures is exactly like expecting a thermometer stuck in the Sun to register it as freezing cold, just as my previous analogy said.
This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.
Let's go stick a thermometer in the Sun while we're at it to test whether it is hot or not.
-
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.
-
As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.
I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.
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.
I contacted CERN many times over the years and didn't get the results of the experiment.
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.
I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.
-
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.
You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired
-
I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.
Precision measurements of a thermometer in the Sun are missing from the literature too.
-
As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.
I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.
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.
I contacted CERN many times over the years and didn't get the results of the experiment.
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.
I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.
Why should they consider carrying out these experiments when you don't have a model to demonstrate how you propose this works? Without it is just he musings of a random looney.
Equally, using your logic, the NASA moon missions should have carried out tests to prove conclusive that the moon was not made of cheese.
Results required.
-
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.
Do you realise that your reply there doesn't actually answer my question which was
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?
-
You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired
The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?
-
The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?
Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.
-
The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?
Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.
Actually, one of the things that marks out successful people is that they do give up- when they recognise that they are doing something pointless.
-
You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired
The University of Leeds will not assist my project and I don't have £120,000 to fund the experiment. How to proceed ?
I gather you can crowdfund things that make no sense whatsoever...
-
Actually, one of the things that marks out successful people is that they do give up- when they recognise that they are doing something pointless.
Spoilsport
-
Look for other sources of funding and support - research council, private donations etc.
The thing that marks out successful people is they don't give up.
I already contacted thousands of scientists from all over the world to do the experiment. I also contacted many universities, journals and societies to do the experiment. Who else is left to conclude the experiment ?
-
You.
I was going to suggest crowdfunding but @Bored chemist beat me to it.
-
I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?
That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.
-
I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?
That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.
That's an interesting point.
It seems that you have missed many people asking how big the change is, but you have not missed the OP answering it- because he hasn't.
-
I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?
My theory provides qualitative predictions. Glaser (1990) showed 20 gram metal heated by 5 degC in air lost 100 micrograms and 1 Kg metal heated in air lost 1 milligram (1993). The experiment should be carried out at highest precision measurable but I suspect a microgram balance could be sufficient to find the missing weight predicted by my theory.
-
showed 20 gram metal heated by 5 degC in air lost 100 micrograms and 1 Kg metal heated in air lost 1 milligram (
Thanks for providing some actual numbers.
Now we can do science.
You say he measured changes in mass with temperature. The 1Kg lost a milligram.
Imagine that the 1Kg is split into 20 identical slices.
Each of them must have lost 1/20 of a milligram- that's the only way the maths can work. 1/20 mg is 50 micrograms
So we know that if the measurements are valid then a 20 gram weight should lose 50 micrograms.
But when he measured the change of mass on a 20 gram weight he got the wrong answer.
So, the thing we conclude from this data is that his experiment was flawed.
You could have made that assessment of his data just as well as I did.
The basis of science is to try to prove that thugs awe wrong, but that's not what you did.
To summarise, we now know that
He is wrong and
you are not interested in doing science.
Incidentally, if the changes are really that big, it would be fairly easy to measure them- so much so that we would have noticed by now.We haven't.
A quick check on eBay gave me this offer
http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Mettler-Toledo-XS205DU-Analytical-Balance/152787254644?epid=7009535412&hash=item2392d47d74:g:vQ0AAOSwHwZaCvWP
So your experiment would also be relatively cheap. You would need some other bits + pieces too, but you don't need £120,000.
For what it's worth, my guess is that his mistake was not to take proper account of convection currents. It would have been much better to do the experiment in a vacuum chamber.
That's a very obvious flaw in his experimental design. You might wonder why he did it so badly.
-
50 microgram is a heck of a lot, if converted to energy. 4500 joules, to be precise. Now that amount of energy would raise 20 gram of metal by 50 degrees, which would promote the loss of another 500 microgram, and so ad infinitum until all the metal was vaporised, turned into plasma, and distributed to the far corners of the universe.
So where did the energy go?
-
You say he measured changes in mass with temperature. The 1Kg lost a milligram.
Imagine that the 1Kg is split into 20 identical slices.
Each of them must have lost 1/20 of a milligram- that's the only way the maths can work. 1/20 mg is 50 micrograms
So we know that if the measurements are valid then a 20 gram weight should lose 50 micrograms.
Actually 20 gram weight should have lost 20 micrograms but this is beside the point. The point is metals heated in air lose weight and metals cooled in air gain weight (Glaser 1993). Air convection clearly has an effect on weight and different surface area to volume ratios could account for the results of his experiments. However, you can't be sure the entire change in weight is due to air convection without repeating the experiment in vacuum.
Incidentally, if the changes are really that big, it would be fairly easy to measure them- so much so that we would have noticed by now.We haven't.
I have not seen the results of the experiment in vacuum.
So your experiment would also be relatively cheap. You would need some other bits + pieces too, but you don't need £120,000.
This figure was provided by an experimentalist at the University of Leeds. I suspect the experiment could be carried out at a fraction of the cost if you have free access to a vacuum chamber and a precision balance.
-
Actually 20 gram weight should have lost 20 micrograms but this is beside the point.
Well spotted, I messed up the arithmetic.
The results are even more obviously wrong.
Why are you still pretending they are worthy of attention?
However, you can't be sure the entire change in weight is due to air convection without repeating the experiment in vacuum.
So get on with it.
Don't come back until you have results.
I suspect the experiment could be carried out at a fraction of the cost if you have free access to a vacuum chamber and a precision balance.
Obviously, so why did you quote the silly price?
-
Why are you still pretending they are worthy of attention?
Weighing heated metals in air is the closest experiment I found to weighing heated metals in vacuum.
So get on with it.
Don't come back until you have results.
I am not an experimentalist and posted this thread to find experimentalists to conclude the experiment.
Obviously, so why did you quote the silly price?
Maybe doing the experiment at higher precision is this expensive or maybe this is another obstacle placed between me and the results of the experiment.
-
Weighing heated metals in air is the closest experiment I found to weighing heated metals in vacuum.
And it gave meaningless results because of some error or other.Maybe doing the experiment at higher precision is this expensive
That's exactly why Alan said this
I may have missed something along the way. What is the predicted mass or weight change for a given temperature change?
That figure will determine the cost of the investigation.Happy to help thereafter.
But if you are moving the goalposts...
For what it's worth, this is how I'd do it.
Put the balance in a vacuum chamber. You may need to wire up the controls so you can operate it from outside the chamber.
Get a block of copper (Copper is non-magnetic which avoids some potential problems and is a good conductor of heat so it will tend to be the same temperature throughout) weighing about 79 grams (a bit less than the range of the balance).
I'd go for a cube with a small hole in one side.
Paint it black.
Put it on the balance on a piece of something like polythene sheeting to act as thermal insulation, and evacuate the chamber.
(The apparent weight of the block will increase slightly as the air is removed due to buoyancy effects. You could even use this as a rough check on the sensitivity of the balance.)
Wait for the reading to settle.
Aim a laser through the chamber wall (you will need a window for this if it isn't a glass chamber) into the hole in the copper block.
Most of the light will be absorbed, so the block will heat up.
You can use an infra red thermometer to measure the temperature of the copper block (the black paint will improve the accuracy of the measurements- you can do a separate calibration run if you want better precision.)
Either the reading on the balance will change, or it will not.
The biggest pitfall is that the heat from the block will also warm up the balance slightly. That will make bits of it expand and that will alter the reading- because the "lever lengths" change a bit.
A few carefully placed bits of aluminium foil and good lagging under the block would minimise that effect.
One other problem; the balance- like all electronics- will dissipate some heat.
In a vacuum (and thus without air cooling- it may overheat.
You might be able to address a lot of that problem by separating mot of the electronics from the bit that actually does the weighing- and only have the "weighing" bit in the vacuum chamber.
Modern balances are already designed so that the mechanical bits and the electronic bits are largely separate, so that's not as difficult as it sounds.
-
Full marks for a very slick experiment!
A class IV laser or even a focussed LED source will deliver several joules adiabatically so you should see a vertical deflection if you use a horizontal beam to heat the target (a vertical beam will deflect the target by virtue of Einstein radiation pressure, but this will cease when the beam is turned of, and the balance will oscillate - let's keep it simple.)
https://erowid.org/archive/rhodium/chemistry/equipment/scale.html describes a home-made microgram balance that can be built for around £50. But I suspect any university laboratory with a pulsed light source and a vacuum pump will probably have a commercial Cahn electrobalance on the shelf or in the rental catalog, so we are talking about a week's work to make the target and assemble the equipment.
The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is. Happy to donate a week of my time at the Cavendish, Engineering or Chemistry labs near here, Leeds, Imperial, or wherever Yaniv can find a bench and some kit.
But don't use black paint. We'll spend the first day making a hollow shell target with a small entrance hole - no problem for any decent workshop.
-
If you want a bit more sensitivity it would be relatively simple to use a heavier test mass, but to offset most of its weight with a counterweight. That way the analytical balance only has to handle the difference between two masses.
If you choose to play that game you can also set up the rig so that the two masses are "far" from the balance itself so they won't perturb it.
At least part of the surface of the object has to be a well defined colour so that you can use an IR thermometer to measure the temperature without touching it. Black is the best choice.
Of course, just heating the copper to oxidise it until it's black would also work.
-
Indeed we can offset the mass with a counterweight. I have in mind about a gram each side of the balance.
The problem with paint or an oxide layer is outgassing when the target is heated. But if we shine a light through a small hole into a hollow sphere, we can assume that (A-a)/A of the incident energy is absorbed where A is the area of the sphere and a the area of the hole, so we can calculate the mean temperature rise of the target, which will be less than the surface temperature rise you would measure with an IR thermometer.
Once heated, the mass will remain lighter until it cools, and we can make it lighter still by adding a bit more heat. That will suffice for a qualitative demonstration even if the numbers look a bit rough.
-
Calculating the temperature rise means knowing the laser power exactly.
That's not a very difficult thing to measure, but I'd rather not have to.
Measuring the temperature of the block directly seems to me like a better approach.
Either would work.
If you shine the light in at a slight angle and assume the sphere isn't very well polished on the inside then you can assume the whole of the incident light is absorbed- the amount reflected out of the hole will be tiny.
It's just a thought, with a high power laser you could check the accuracy of the balance by using photon pressure as llong as you knew the beam power.
Out-gassing would be a real problem if we were talking about a high vacuum, but in this case I think that taking say 99.9% of the air out will reduce the effects of convection by a thousandfold. If ( as I strongly suspect) the results for "mass loss" reported earlier are actually due to convection then they should fall by roughly the same fraction as the air pressure.
For a chamber at 1 mBar the out-gassing's going to be irrelevant.
There's a microbalance that doesn't get used much where I work; I wonder if they would "lend" it to me :-)
Checked eBay
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/CAHN-INSTRUMENTS-C-30-MICROBALANCE-10930-02F-MICRO-BALANCE/232585605861?hash=item36272eb2e5:g:ORIAAOSwk~ZaJVox
I think those blances have a capacity of over a gram and a best resolution of a microgram
-
The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is. Happy to donate a week of my time at the Cavendish, Engineering or Chemistry labs near here, Leeds, Imperial, or wherever Yaniv can find a bench and some kit.
I am not employed at the University of Leeds and don't have access to a bench or a kit. But I am happy to pay you the above sum to conclude the experiment.
-
Now I'll calculate how much E=mc2 predicts mass should increase with temperature. I'll consider a material will well-studied properties: silicon dioxide (silica). Solid silica has an average heat capacity of 1.165 J/g*K (averaged over the temperature range at which it is a solid). If we start at room temperature (273.15 Kelvins) and raise a block of solid silica up to its melting point (1,986 Kelvins), that is a temperature increase of 1,712.85 Kelvins. That represents an energy increase of 1,995.47 J/g in the silica block. In accordance with E=mc2, 1 gram of mass is equivalent to 89,875,517,873,681,786 joules of energy (or alternatively, that 1 joule of energy is 1.1126501 x 10-17 grams). So that means 1 gram of silica heated from room temperature up to its melting point will gain 2.2202598 x 10-14 grams of weight. For 1,000 metric tons of silica, that's a gain of 0.000022202598 grams. That's a very, very small amount.
-
Calculating the temperature rise means knowing the laser power exactly.
That's not a very difficult thing to measure, but I'd rather not have to.
No problem.I can borrow a laser power meter. In fact the best ones seem to be , would you believe, a hollow copper sphere with a small hole and a thermistor.
The Cahn balance is a null device, so you can calibrate it with milligram weights, IIRC.
At this stage we aren't too concerned about accuracy anyway. The question is one of orders of magnitude between Kryptid's calculation from conventional relativity and Yaniv's proposal.
-
The Cahn balance is a null device, so you can calibrate it with milligram weights, IIRC.
True, but f it's inside a vacuum chamber, that's a fiddly job- and if you happen to have a laser...
No problem.I can borrow a laser power meter.
Getting someone else to do the calibration's always an option, but I still prefer the direct approach.
Different folks...
Both options would work, which puts them one up on the actual experiment which won't work.
(You can I know that a negative result is still a result but I'm not sure it would satisfy this particular audience.)
-
@alancalverd @Bored chemist Did you do the experiment and do you have results ?
-
The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is. Happy to donate a week of my time at the Cavendish, Engineering or Chemistry labs near here, Leeds, Imperial, or wherever.
-
Quote from: alancalverd on 28/01/2018 11:28:45
The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is. Happy to donate a week of my time at the Cavendish, Engineering or Chemistry labs near here, Leeds, Imperial, or wherever.
I thought you agreed to do the experiment and I will pay you after the results are published on this thread or elsewhere in the scientific literature or on the internet. How do you want me to pay you right now ?
-
This is another paper measuring weight of heated metals decreases at increasing temperature.
http://www.enginsci.cn/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=20091215001&flag=&journal_id=chinaes
-
Find me a set of instructions for a decent balance that doesn't explain that you shouldn't weigh hot things, because of convection currents.
-
Find me a set of instructions for a decent balance that doesn't explain that you shouldn't weigh hot things, because of convection currents.
In this paper metals were heated inside a thermal insulator to reduce convection currents. Weighing the apparatus in vacuum would eliminate heat convection all together. What happened to the laser method of heating ? I thought it was a cool experiment.
-
Alan
"50 microgram is a heck of a lot, if converted to energy. 4500 joules"
I feel you have underated the value of c by a factor of 1000 also you have not taken into account the the specific heat of the sample and assumed it to be unity which is unlikely.
This of course shows that the suggestion put forth by Yaniv is even less likely to be true
-
Alan
"50 microgram is a heck of a lot, if converted to energy. 4500 joules"
I feel you have underated the value of c by a factor of 1000 also you have not taken into account the the specific heat of the sample and assumed it to be unity which is unlikely.
This of course shows that the suggestion put forth by Yaniv is even less likely to be true
What 50 micrograms are you talking about ?
-
The is another paper measuring weight of a heated thermal insulator decreases at increasing temperature.
http://intellectualarchive.com/getfile.php?file=ueSLj97NCAp&orig_file=A_Dmitriev__Weight.pdf
-
The is another paper measuring weight of a heated thermal insulator decreases at increasing temperature.
http://intellectualarchive.com/getfile.php?file=ueSLj97NCAp&orig_file=A_Dmitriev__Weight.pdf
And a piss poor paper it is too.
It fails to mention the words vacuum or convection- so it hasn't dealt with the biggest problems involved in making such a measurement.
It also doesn't talk about how they addressed magnetic fields produced by the heating current.
It's a waste of bandwidth.
-
And a piss poor paper it is too.
It fails to mention the words vacuum or convection- so it hasn't dealt with the biggest problems involved in making such a measurement.
It also doesn't talk about how they addressed magnetic fields produced by the heating current.
It's a waste of bandwidth.
The outer vessels were specifically designed to reduce heat convection. You either didn't read or don't understand the paper. Weighing the apparatus in vacuum should completely eliminate heat convection.
The electric heater was switched on for 20 seconds and reduction in weight was recorded for several minutes so magnetic fields likely have a minimal effect on weight.
What happened to the laser method of heating ?
-
Weighing the apparatus in vacuum should completely eliminate heat convection.
They didn't.
That's my point.
he outer vessels were specifically designed to reduce heat convection.
Reduce it to zero?
The electric heater was switched on for 20 seconds
And, when they switched it on the weight suddenly jumped down, even though any change in temperature would obviously be more gradual.
So...
Whatever the effect is, it's not temperature.
Nobody is going to bother doing an experiment they know will "fail" - even if it gives them an excuse to play with lasers.
-
Weighing the apparatus in vacuum should completely eliminate heat convection.
They didn't.
That's my point.
And my point is to conclude the experiment in vacuum to test a prediction of my theory against conservation of mass.
he outer vessels were specifically designed to reduce heat convection.
Reduce it to zero?
Almost zero. Repeating the experiment in vacuum will reduce heat convection to zero.
And, when they switched it on the weight suddenly jumped down, even though any change in temperature would obviously be more gradual.
So...
Whatever the effect is, it's not temperature.
What is your explanation for reduction in weight ?
Nobody is going to bother doing an experiment they know will "fail" - even if it gives them an excuse to play with lasers.
Even for £10K ?
-
What is your explanation for reduction in weight ?
There isn't any real evidence of a change in weight that I might need to explain.Even for £10K ?
No.
The trouble is that, by the time you are offering enough money to make me take notice, you are offering more money that I would be prepared to accept from some fool because it would seem like exploitation.
What's stopping you ding the experiment yourself?
-
There isn't any real evidence of a change in weight that I might need to explain.
I provided several papers showing weight decreases at increasing temperature. You have not provided any paper showing weight does Not change at increasing temperature.
No.
The trouble is that, by the time you are offering enough money to make me take notice, you are offering more money that I would be prepared to accept from some fool because it would seem like exploitation.
The expenditure of £5 - 10,000 seems very reasonable if the result disproves all that we know about physics.Given the chance of a Nobel prize if he's right, Mr Yaniv should now put his money where his mouth is.
What's stopping you ding the experiment yourself?
The experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists.
-
I provided several papers showing weight decreases at increasing temperature. You have not provided any paper showing weight does Not change at increasing temperature.
I have also not shown any paper s depicting the absence of unicorns- for the same reason.
I did, early in the thread, explain that thousands of dsc experiments every day show that there is no such change.
The experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists.
Ideally, yes, but it is an important aspect of science that (at least in principle) it does not matter who does the experiment- as long as they do it properly.
Even an experiment done by a school-kid can be internationally recognised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
It's even possible for an experiment, proposed by a mere patent clerk, to be recognised without actually having been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
-
I did, early in the thread, explain that thousands of dsc experiments every day show that there is no such change.
Send a reference of an experiment specifically testing a link between weight and temperature.
Even an experiment done by a school-kid can be internationally recognised.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mpemba_effect
It's even possible for an experiment, proposed by a mere patent clerk, to be recognised without actually having been done.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
These links have no relevance to this thread.
-
These links have no relevance to this thread.
I'm sure others understand the relevance.
Perhaps they will explain it for you
-
I'm sure others understand the relevance.
Perhaps they will explain it for you
I gather others also don't understand relevance of your links.
-
I'm sure others understand the relevance.
Perhaps they will explain it for you
I gather others also don't understand relevance of your links.
How many people do you think are still reading this drivel-some thread you started?
Anyway, I'm sure they will chip in eventually.
In the mean time, you may remember that you said "The experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists."
and I have pointed out that you don't need a "proper experimentalist" and I cited a couple of examples to prove it.
You say you somehow don't think the evidence that shows you to be wrong is relevant.
I still think others will understand it.
Perhaps you will too, if you think it over fro a while.
-
Anyway, I'm sure they will chip in eventually.
I fully understand how relativity falsifies his hypothesis, but I have admit that I feel kind of stupid for being unable to figure out how the Mpemba effect does so.
-
Anyway, I'm sure they will chip in eventually.
I fully understand how relativity falsifies his hypothesis, but I have admit that I feel kind of stupid for being unable to figure out how the Mpemba effect does so.
His contention was that he couldn't do the experiment himself because "The experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists.
"
Which is silly- anyone can do an experiment- even a school-kid.
So, he has no real excuse for not doing the experiment if he wants to.
-
Anyway, I'm sure they will chip in eventually.
I fully understand how relativity falsifies his hypothesis, but I have admit that I feel kind of stupid for being unable to figure out how the Mpemba effect does so.
His contention was that he couldn't do the experiment himself because "The experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists.
"
Which is silly- anyone can do an experiment- even a school-kid.
So, he has no real excuse for not doing the experiment if he wants to.
True, although high-precision experiments like the one he is trying to perform might require equipment that he can't afford or tight constraints that he doesn't know how to properly meet.
-
True, although high-precision experiments like the one he is trying to perform might require equipment that he can't afford
Have you read the thread?
-
Have you read the thread?
I may have missed some things, given that I did ignore it for a while.
-
How many people do you think are still reading this drivel-some thread you started?
I only need one righteous scientist to conclude the experiment and post the results.
Anyway, I'm sure they will chip in eventually.
What's the delay ?
You say you somehow don't think the evidence that shows you to be wrong is relevant.
Which experimental evidence you are talking about ?
-
Which experimental evidence you are talking about ?
Why did you put the word "experimental" into that?
It was clear from the context that I was pointing out that young Mr Mpemba's experiment was accepted and has become famous even though he was a schoolkid when he did it. You do not need to be a "proper experimentalist" to do an experiment.
Have you understood that simple fact yet?
-
I only need one righteous scientist to conclude the experiment and post the results.
I have shown that you don't really need to be a "scientist " to do an experiment.
What's stopping you doing it?
Are you not righteous enough?
-
Why did you put the word "experimental" into that?
To distinguish between "theoretical" predictions and "experimental" evidence.
You do not need to be a "proper experimentalist" to do an experiment.
Had I done the experiment you and others would not have believed the results because I am not a "proper experimentalist".
What's stopping you doing it?
I may have a few basic skills in molecular biology and genetics but I don't have the technical and electrical skills to engineer this experiment.
Are you not righteous enough?
I am not neutral enough.
-
To distinguish between "theoretical" predictions and "experimental" evidence.
In the context of my pointing out that Mr Mpemba did an experiment, that distinction hardly makes any sense.Had I done the experiment you and others would not have believed the results because I am not a "proper experimentalist".
Don't presume to tell me what I would believe and why.
I might ask questions about it, but if I really couldn't find a source of error I'd have to repeat the experiment myself.
If I too got the unexpected result we could run a joint publication (don't worry, you would get the credit for being first>)
If, ion the other hand I spotted errors in your experimental technique, that wouldn't mean you were "wrong" it would just mean that the experiment was ambiguous.
You would need to do a better one.
I'd offer to help with design.
I may have a few basic skills in molecular biology and genetics but I don't have the technical and electrical skills to engineer this experiment.
Learn.
I am not neutral enough.
Are you more neutral than I am, or less so?
It doesn't matter .
Science doesn't care what you believe- it works anyway.
-
I feel like Einstein being told go and photograph stars yourself.
Where is Eddington ?
-
Einstein had a logically valid argument to back him up.
You don't
Einstein didn't have to explain why all the previous (good) experiments didn't agree with his idea.
\You do.
Come back when something changes.
-
Einstein had a logically valid argument to back him up.
Really?
Einstein didn't have to explain why all the previous (good) experiments didn't agree with his idea.
List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?
-
Really?
Yes.
List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?
Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
What would be the point?
Mere evidence doesn't change your viewpoint.
-
Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
I gather your evidence are the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots you provided in reply #17 (below).
How about this?
The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf
Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.
In reply #13 you provided this link (below).
OK, here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
The link you provided says thermogravimetric plots are often smoothed.
Click on smoothed and you get to this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing
Are you sure your flat bits evidence are not smoothed ?
-
Let us know when something changes.
-
The link you provided says thermogravimetric plots are often smoothed.
Click on smoothed and you get to this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing
Are you sure your flat bits evidence are not smoothed ?
You didn't answer my question.
-
The manufacturers/ developers of the equipment will look at the unprocessed data- and they will be looking for trends of exactly the sort you are suggesting.
If they find it they get a Nobel prize, and international recognition (as well as being able to make their kit a bit better.
They haven't found it.
Nor have the people looking at trajectories of satellites (which heat and cool as they pas through the Earth's shadow).
Nor has anyone else.
As I said, the important thing here is for you to stop wasting bandwidth and to come back to us when something changes.
-
The manufacturers/ developers of the equipment will look at the unprocessed data- and they will be looking for trends of exactly the sort you are suggesting.
If they find it they get a Nobel prize, and international recognition (as well as being able to make their kit a bit better.
They haven't found it.
Reference please.
Nor have the people looking at trajectories of satellites (which heat and cool as they pas through the Earth's shadow).
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.
@Bored chemist doesn't know if his flat bits evidence are smoothed and ignores my references measuring weight reduction at increasing temperature (Glaser reply #19, Chinese team reply #370, Dmitriev reply #375).
-
Do you have any idea how silly it is to ask for a reference to the fact that someone hasn't won a Nobel prize?
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.
You don't have a "theory" you have a wild guess.
We have been here before.
ignores my references measuring weight reduction at increasing temperature (Glaser reply #19, Chinese team reply #370, Dmitriev reply #375).
That's clearly not true. I provided 3 separate replies to post 375, one to post 370.
The other reference you give is paywalled- so I can't read it, so I can't comment on it.
However the author can, and he has.
He is reported as saying this
"Abstract
The change of the apparent mass of 20-g masses and tubes that are not in thermal equilibrium with ambient air has been observed. Buoyancy, adsorption and convection influences are discussed. Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf
I underlined the bit you seem to have missed which says the apparent effect is actually due to convection.
I pointed that out in reply number 40.
So it's clear that you lied when you said I ignored your references, You just ignored the responses, possibly because they would shatter your delusion.
Let us know when something changes.
-
He is reported as saying this
"Abstract
The change of the apparent mass of 20-g masses and tubes that are not in thermal equilibrium with ambient air has been observed. Buoyancy, adsorption and convection influences are discussed. Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf
I underlined the bit you seem to have missed which says the apparent effect is actually due to convection.
I pointed that out in reply number 40.
So it's clear that you lied when you said I ignored your references, You just ignored the responses, possibly because they would shatter your delusion.
@Bored chemist you still don't get it. Glaser claims convection is responsible for weight reduction. Dmitriev and the Chinese team reduced convection by heating metals inside thermal insulation and still observed weight reduction which implies factors other than Glaser convection are responsible for weight reduction. Repeating the experiment in vacuum should eliminate convection all together. Do you get it now ?
-
Chinese team reduced convection
You don't get it, do you?
Reduced does not mean eliminated.
They could have eliminated it- by using a vacuum chamber- but they didn't.
What does that tell you about the quality of their work?
Get back to us when something changes (and try not to tell lies next time- it makes you look silly).
-
Reduced does not mean eliminated.
But raises the possibility factors other than convection are responsible for weight reduction.
They could have eliminated it- by using a vacuum chamber- but they didn't.
I don't know why the Chinese team and Dmitriev did not do the experiment in vacuum.
What does that tell you about the quality of their work?
I don't know about their quality of work but I do know the experiment should be repeated in vacuum. #ResultsRequired
-
#ResultsRequired
Get back to us when something changes
-
1. Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
2. Do you think the results of Glaser, Dmitriev and the Chinese team showing W decreases at increasing T should not be investigated further ?
3. Do you think predicting the results of an experiment is a substitute for doing an experiment ?
-
Do you think predicting the results of an experiment is a substitute for doing an experiment ?
Do you have to drop an apple every morning to check that gravity is still working?
Do you think the results of Glaser, Dmitriev and the Chinese team showing W decreases at increasing T should not be investigated further ?
Glaser showed that the effect was down to convection.
Most people would have guessed that. No point to any further investigation.
As for the other two, I think the reason why they didn't do it properly, and yet published their results should be published.
Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
Not on their own.
However, as I said, there are other things that would "go wrong" if you were right, and we would have noticed.
Also as I said, the manufacturers and developers of TGA equipment would have noticed the anomaly.
-
My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.
We have indeed been here before, about reply number 300.
Back then we showed that your idea that you can change mass, but not change gravitational forces doesn't work.
-
Do you have to drop an apple every morning to check that gravity is still working?
You need to drop the apple at least once.
Glaser showed that the effect was down to convection.
Most people would have guessed that. No point to any further investigation.
Curiousless chemist.
However, as I said, there are other things that would "go wrong" if you were right, and we would have noticed.
Like what ?
Also as I said, the manufacturers and developers of TGA equipment would have noticed the anomaly.
I think they know about this anomaly and smoothed it out because they can't think outside the box and is the reason why the results of the experiment are absent from the literature.
Back then we showed that your idea that you can change mass, but not change gravitational forces doesn't work.
Only in your theory.
-
Only in your theory.
We have "only" a theory; look up what that mans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory
You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.
-
You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.
Like what ?
-
You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.
Like what ?
Really?
Yes.
List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?
Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
What would be the point?
Mere evidence doesn't change your viewpoint.
-
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
Not on their own.
-
(1) Your proposal that mass decreases as thermal energy content increases is incompatible with E=mc2. Therefore, your model and E=mc2 cannot both be correct at the same time. Verification of one would automatically be falsification of the other.
(2) E=mc2 has been experimentally verified by numerous observations and experiments over many decades (nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, matter-antimatter annihilation, etc.)
(3) Therefore, your model has been falsified without any need to do your proposed experiment.
-
(1) Your proposal that mass decreases as thermal energy content increases is incompatible with E=mc2. Therefore, your model and E=mc2 cannot both be correct at the same time. Verification of one would automatically be falsification of the other.
The results of the experiment would automatically falsify one of our theories.
(2) E=mc2 has been experimentally verified by numerous observations and experiments over many decades (nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, matter-antimatter annihilation, etc.)
E=mc2 has Not been verified by the proposed experiment.
(3) Therefore, your model has been falsified without any need to do your proposed experiment.
Do you have the results ? #ResultsRequired
-
The results of the experiment would automatically falsify one of our theories.
The fact that E=mc2 has been verified experimentally means that your model has been falsified. What you have proposed is an "either-or" scenario. Either one is right or the other is right. When one has been shown to be correct, the other has automatically been shown to be incorrect. We know that E=mc2 is correct. Therefore, your model is the one that has to be wrong. It's a simple fact of logical deduction.
E=mc2 has Not been verified by the proposed experiment.
It doesn't have to be because it has already been verified by many others. It would be exactly the same thing if you proposed an experiment to test and see if water is H2O. It's completely and utterly unnecessary.
Do you have the results ? #ResultsRequired
Yes: mass doesn't decrease at increasing temperatures because E=mc2 is correct. That's a sufficiently-conclusive result.
-
The fact that E=mc2 has been verified experimentally means that your model has been falsified. What you have proposed is an "either-or" scenario. Either one is right or the other is right. When one has been shown to be correct, the other has automatically been shown to be incorrect. We know that E=mc2 is correct. Therefore, your model is the one that has to be wrong. It's a simple fact of logical deduction.
Now I'll calculate how much E=mc2 predicts mass should increase with temperature. I'll consider a material will well-studied properties: silicon dioxide (silica). Solid silica has an average heat capacity of 1.165 J/g*K (averaged over the temperature range at which it is a solid). If we start at room temperature (273.15 Kelvins) and raise a block of solid silica up to its melting point (1,986 Kelvins), that is a temperature increase of 1,712.85 Kelvins. That represents an energy increase of 1,995.47 J/g in the silica block. In accordance with E=mc2, 1 gram of mass is equivalent to 89,875,517,873,681,786 joules of energy (or alternatively, that 1 joule of energy is 1.1126501 x 10-17 grams). So that means 1 gram of silica heated from room temperature up to its melting point will gain 2.2202598 x 10-14 grams of weight. For 1,000 metric tons of silica, that's a gain of 0.000022202598 grams. That's a very, very small amount.
What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?
-
What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?
Nothing, because it won't. That's like asking, "What happens to the laws of genetic inheritance if a dog was to be impregnated by a palm tree?"
-
Or asking about the geotechnical implications of cheese mining on the moon.
-
What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?
Nothing, because it won't.
You have Not provided experimental evidence to support this statement.
-
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
Not on their own.
Just as well that they are not on their own then, isn't it?
However, it's important to remember that ,even a single experiment where no mass change was observed is infinitely more evidence that the "absolutely none" that you have done.
Do you realise that it's your job to evince your claim?
-
What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?
The biggest word in that post is "if".
The answer is that, if it happened we would have to reconsider.
So far, it hasn't happened.
As I have said before; come back when something changes.
-
You have Not provided experimental evidence to support this statement.
Sure I have. I've said that experiments with nuclear reactions, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, and matter-antimatter annihilation all demonstrate that E=mc2 is a fact. Since your model depends critically on E=mc2 being false, your model has been falsified. Easy peasy.
-
Sure I have. I've said that experiments with nuclear reactions, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, and matter-antimatter annihilation all demonstrate that E=mc2 is a fact. Since your model depends critically on E=mc2 being false, your model has been falsified. Easy peasy.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and disproves your claim the results of the above experiments prove E=mc2 is a fact.
However, it's important to remember that ,even a single experiment where no mass change was observed is infinitely more evidence that the "absolutely none" that you have done.
It is important to remember you have not provided a single experiment (beside flat bits on smoothed plots of unrelated experiments) showing W does not change at increasing T. I provided three independent papers showing W reduction at increasing T and more importantly found the result of the proposed experiment is missing from the literature.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and disproves your claim the results of the above experiments prove E=mc2 is a fact.
You mean the same way that a thermometer put into the Sun measuring it to have a temperature of 10 kelvins would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously measured it to be about 5,800 kelvins?
Or the way that making a really long meter stick to measure the Moon's distance and finding that it was only 200 kilometers away would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously measured it to be between 360,000 and 407,000 kilometers away?
Or how the impregnation of a horse with the pollen of a pine tree resulting in a viable plant-animal hybrid would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously demonstrated that genetics doesn't work that way?
Shall I continue with the analogies?
-
I provided three independent papers showing W reduction at increasing T
None of them actually shows that.
They show that the experimenters didn't take account of convection (or, in one case they show that the experimenter said that the "effect" is due to convection).
The point you keep missing is that your idea "needs" E to not be equal to MC^2
But we know that, in fact, E is equal to MC^2
So your idea can not be right.
-
None of them actually shows that.
All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.
They show that the experimenters didn't take account of convection (or, in one case they show that the experimenter said that the "effect" is due to convection).
...and in the other two cases the experimenters say T decreases g. I predict T decreases m and the next experiment should measure acceleration of hot and cold objects to determine if T decreases g or m.
The point you keep missing is that your idea "needs" E to not be equal to MC^2
But we know that, in fact, E is equal to MC^2
So your idea can not be right.
Only in your mathematics.
-
All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.
Nope, all of them measured an apparent increase in mass.
. I predict T decreases m and the next experiment should measure acceleration of hot and cold objects to determine if T decreases g or m.
Then do the **** experiment and stop wasting our time.
Only in your mathematics.
You may want to check that with others.
-
All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.
Nope, all of them measured an apparent increase in mass.
Are you playing stupid ?
-
Only in your mathematics.
It isn't just math. It's measurable: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2 (http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2)
From the article:
The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That's 55 times more precise than the best previous test.
-
It isn't just math. It's measurable: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2
Weighing a heated metal in vacuum is a much simpler experiment to test the accuracy of E=mc2.
-
It isn't just math. It's measurable: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2
Weighing a heated metal in vacuum is a much simpler experiment to test the accuracy of E=mc2.
No it isn't.
A good analytical balance will weigh something reliably to about 1 part in 10,000,000
So the next question is, how hot does something need to be to increase its mas by a part in 10^7?
It doesn't matter much what you use, as the test substance, lets start with a lump of copper which weighs 1000 grams.
To make it weigh 1000.0001 grams you need to add energy equivalent to 0.0001 grams.
That's 10^-7 Kg
So the energy MC^2
1E-7 * 3 E 8 *3 E 8
9GJ of energy
The heat capacity of copper (near room temperature) is about 0.4 J/gK
So it takes 0.4 KJ to raise the temperature of our copper block by 1 degree.
So if we used 9GJ of energy it would heat it by about 22 million degrees.
(Obviously,long before it reached that temperature it would melt, boil and turn into plasma- all of those effects would alter the heat capacity, but it hardly matters much.)
So, what you said was that the "simple" way to do something is to weigh it then heat it to nearly the temperature of the centre of then Sun, then weigh it again, to about the best precision that we can actually weigh things (if the balance was 10 times better, you might only need to heat the sample to 2 million degrees and so on).
It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Why don't you just go away and learn some science?
-
Weighing a heated metal in vacuum is a much simpler experiment to test the accuracy of E=mc2.
The experiment that measured E=mc2 to be accurate to more than 1 part in 1 million has already been done, so it doesn't matter what's simpler or not. We have the data.
-
No it isn't.
A good analytical balance will weigh something reliably to about 1 part in 10,000,000
So the next question is, how hot does something need to be to increase its mas by a part in 10^7?
It doesn't matter much what you use, as the test substance, lets start with a lump of copper which weighs 1000 grams.
To make it weigh 1000.0001 grams you need to add energy equivalent to 0.0001 grams.
That's 10^-7 Kg
So the energy MC^2
1E-7 * 3 E 8 *3 E 8
9GJ of energy
The heat capacity of copper (near room temperature) is about 0.4 J/gK
So it takes 0.4 KJ to raise the temperature of our copper block by 1 degree.
So if we used 9GJ of energy it would heat it by about 22 million degrees.
(Obviously,long before it reached that temperature it would melt, boil and turn into plasma- all of those effects would alter the heat capacity, but it hardly matters much.)
So, what you said was that the "simple" way to do something is to weigh it then heat it to nearly the temperature of the centre of then Sun, then weigh it again, to about the best precision that we can actually weigh things (if the balance was 10 times better, you might only need to heat the sample to 2 million degrees and so on).
It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.
Why don't you just go away and learn some science?
You have made a prediction. Now let's test it.
The experiment that measured E=mc2 to be accurate to more than 1 part in 1 million has already been done, so it doesn't matter what's simpler or not.
Curving charged particles in magnetic fields is a completely different experiment to weighing a heated metal in vacuum. Don't you think E=mc2 should be tested by different types of experiments ?
We have the data.
We don't have the data on the effect of T on W. All we have are predictions.
-
Curving charged particles in magnetic fields is a completely different experiment to weighing a heated metal in vacuum. Don't you think E=mc2 should be tested by different types of experiments ?
Different kinds of experiments have already been done to verify it and are being done every day. Positron emission tomography measures that gamma ray energies equal to that predicted by E=mc2 are released when electrons and positrons annihilate each other. Even as far back as 1932, the Cockcroft-Walton generator verified E=mc2 to an accuracy of 0.5% by transmuting lithium into helium and measuring the mass and kinetic energy of the resulting particles. E=mc2 is tested every time a nuclear reactor is powered up. We have more than enough information to know that E=mc2 is highly accurate.
We don't have the data on the effect of T on W. All we have are predictions.
We don't have data on the temperature measurement of a thermometer in the Sun. All we have are predictions.
-
Different kinds of experiments have already been done to verify it and are being done every day. Positron emission tomography measures that gamma ray energies equal to that predicted by E=mc2 are released when electrons and positrons annihilate each other. Even as far back as 1932, the Cockcroft-Walton generator verified E=mc2 to an accuracy of 0.5% by transmuting lithium into helium and measuring the mass and kinetic energy of the resulting particles. E=mc2 is tested every time a nuclear reactor is powered up. We have more than enough information to know that E=mc2 is highly accurate.
We don't know if E=mc2 is highly accurate at predicting the effect of T on W.
We don't have data on the temperature measurement of a thermometer in the Sun. All we have are predictions.
If you could place a thermometer in the sun, would you ?
-
Curving charged particles in magnetic fields is a completely different experiment to weighing a heated metal in vacuum. Don't you think E=mc2 should be tested by different types of experiments ?
It has been.
https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
etc.
The equation is a consequence of relativity.
Relativity has been tested many times to high precision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
So, there's no sensible argument that the equation is wrong.
-
Now let's test it.
How?
The prediction is that the change in mass will be far too small to measure for any practical temperature range.
Of course, there's still nothing stopping you doing the experiment.
-
It has been.
https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energy
etc.
The equation is a consequence of relativity.
Relativity has been tested many times to high precision
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
So, there's no sensible argument that the equation is wrong.
E=mc2 has Not been tested by the proposed experiment.
The prediction is that the change in mass will be far too small to measure for any practical temperature range.
Now an experiment is required to test if your prediction matches the results.
-
We don't know if E=mc2 is highly accurate at predicting the effect of T on W.
It has to be. We know from E=mc2 that energy has an associated mass. Where there is extra energy, there is extra mass to go with it. Heat is a form of energy. So an object must weigh more when it is hot than when it is cold. This is rather like you saying, "We don't know if Ek = 1/2mv2 (the kinetic energy equation) is highly accurate at predicting the effect of dropping an elephant on Mars from 10 meters up.". Just because no one has done that experiment before doesn't mean we don't know how to calculate what its kinetic energy would be if one was to be dropped on Mars from 10 meters up.
If you could place a thermometer in the sun, would you ?
No, because it isn't a necessary experiment to establish that the Sun is hot. We have mountains of other data already. Just as it isn't necessary to weigh heated metal in a vacuum to establish that extra energy adds extra mass to an object.
E=mc2 has Not been tested by the proposed experiment.
The Sun's temperature hasn't been measured with a thermometer either. Are you going to say that we can't really be sure that the Sun is hot until we do that?
-
It has to be. We know from E=mc2 that energy has an associated mass. Where there is extra energy, there is extra mass to go with it. Heat is a form of energy. So an object must weigh more when it is hot than when it is cold.
This is a statement of faith, not fact.Just as it isn't necessary to weigh heated metal in a vacuum to establish that extra energy adds extra mass to an object.
References provided hints to the contrary added energy subtracts weight of an object.
-
This is a statement of faith, not fact.
Just as the claim that the Sun is hot is faith, not fact?
References provided hints to the contrary added energy subtracts weight of an object.
References with identifiable problems.
-
References with identifiable problems.
Which should be resolved by concluding the experiment.
Just as the claim that the Sun is hot is faith, not fact?
I find your analogies stupid.
-
Which should be resolved by concluding the experiment.
It isn't necessary to do so when we already have enough information about the laws of physics to tell us what will happen.
I find your analogies stupid.
They're perfectly apt analogies. You claim that, despite mountains of evidence that E=mc2 is correct, we can't use it to make accurate predictions about the effect that thermal energy has on mass. It's exactly the same as claiming that, despite mountains of evidence that the Sun is hot, we can't use it to make accurate predictions about the effect it would have on a thermometer. The exact same kind of reasoning underlies both.
You claimed that an experiment which determined that E=mc2 is accurate to 1 part in 1 million (in addition to many other previous confirmatory experiments) is "faith, not fact". If you can call some kinds of high-precision, hard data "faith, not fact", then there's nothing keeping you from doing the same to other forms of high-precision, hard data. Like the Sun's temperature, for example. Or do you just have some kind of special double standard that you only apply to E=mc2 that you let other scientific principles get a free pass on?
-
It isn't necessary to do so when we already have enough information about the laws of physics to tell us what will happen.
Are you suggesting the laws of physics should not be tested anymore ?
They're perfectly apt analogies. You claim that, despite mountains of evidence that E=mc2 is correct, we can't use it to make accurate predictions about the effect that thermal energy has on mass.
You are welcome to make predictions about the effect of T on W. Next is to test your predictions against results.
You claimed that an experiment which determined that E=mc2 is accurate to 1 part in 1 million (in addition to many other previous confirmatory experiments) is "faith, not fact". If you can call some kinds of high-precision, hard data "faith, not fact", then there's nothing keeping you from doing the same to other forms of high-precision, hard data.
No. I claim your statement W does Not change at increasing T is faith because we don't have the results of the experiment.
Like the Sun's temperature, for example. Or do you just have some kind of special double standard that you only apply to E=mc2 that you let other scientific principles get a free pass on?
I think had it been possible to place a thermometer in the sun it would have been a great experiment to test if it's readings agree with theoretical predictions.
-
E=mc2 has Not been tested by the proposed experiment.
Because it's a really stupid proposal.
We know that the change in mass is too small to measure directly.Now an experiment is required to test if your prediction matches the results.
It wouldn't help.
We know that the mass change would be too small to measure.
And it would still be too small to measure if it was a thousand times bigger.
So doing the experiment wouldn't even tell us if we were wrong by a factor of a thousand.
So it's pointless.
I find your analogies stupid.
Did it occur to you that this may reflect your comprehension, rather than the analogies themselves?
-
We know that the change in mass is too small to measure directly.
We don't know if the change in W is too small to measure because we haven't completed the experiment.
Did it occur to you that this may reflect your comprehension, rather than the analogies themselves?
I think his analogies are an attempt to confuse, deflect and discourage scientists from concluding the most important experiment in history of physics.
-
I think his analogies are an attempt to confuse, deflect and discourage scientists from concluding the most important experiment in history of physics.
I was right. The problem lies with your comprehension.
We don't know if the change in W is too small to measure because we haven't completed the experiment.
Either do it, or shut up about it.
-
Either do it, or shut up about it.
Had I done the experiment myself you would have discarded the results as quickly as you discarded the results of the references provided. I want this experiment concluded by the best experimentalists on the planet.
-
Are you suggesting the laws of physics should not be tested anymore ?
Only in as much as we are unsure of them. Or to increase the precision of our measurements. Existing experiments are good enough to do both of those things.
You are welcome to make predictions about the effect of T on W. Next is to test your predictions against results.
Like testing the prediction that a thermometer in the Sun would read it as hot?
No. I claim your statement W does Not change at increasing T is faith because we don't have the results of the experiment.
We know from the before-mentioned experiments that energy has mass. Therefore, by saying that mass increasing with temperature is "faith, not fact", you most certainly are saying that the high-precision experiments used to determine the accuracy of E=mc2 are "faith, not fact".
I think had it been possible to place a thermometer in the sun it would have been a great experiment to test if it's readings agree with theoretical predictions.
So you don't believe we can say with confidence from existing data that the Sun is hot? We would have to put a thermometer in the Sun in order to be sure of it?
-
Had I done the experiment myself you would have discarded the results as quickly as you discarded the results of the references provided
Not if you did it right.
-
We know from the before-mentioned experiments that energy has mass. Therefore, by saying that mass increasing with temperature is "faith, not fact", you most certainly are saying that the high-precision experiments used to determine the accuracy of E=mc2 are "faith, not fact".
Your claim W increasing with T is "faith" based on your confidence in your theory. We don't have the "facts".
I suspect all physical equations based on F=ma are false and over the years developed and corrected by addition of new functions to match results and E=mc2 is a reduced expression of many equations.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and provides support for my view on the evolution of physics.
-
Your claim W increasing with T is "faith" based on your confidence in your theory.
It's confidence in data.
We don't have the "facts".
If you don't think experimental data is factual (or at least as close to fact as one can philosophically reach), then there's no point in doing experiments of any kind because obviously experiments don't tell us anything useful.
I suspect all physical equations based on F=ma are false and over the years developed and corrected by addition of new functions to match results and E=mc2 is a reduced expression of many equations.
So then you are positing a conspiracy?
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and provides support for my view on the evolution of physics.
How can you disprove something that's already been proven? Do you think that physicists are part of some massive conspiracy that invented the experimental results out of thin air when they said that they had measured E=mc2 to be accurate to 1 part in 1 million? That's the only option you have. In order for your model to be correct, those physicists must have been lying (or at least exceedingly stupid).
-
It's confidence in data.
You don't have data for the proposed experiment.
If you don't think experimental data is factual (or at least as close to fact as one can philosophically reach), then there's no point in doing experiments of any kind because obviously experiments don't tell us anything useful.
I think curving charged particles in magnetic fields to test accuracy of E=mc2 don't tell us anything useful about the results of the proposed experiment.
So then you are positing a conspiracy?
I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.
How can you disprove something that's already been proven?
Your claim W increases at increasing T has not been experimentally proven. #ResultsRequired
Do you think that physicists are part of some massive conspiracy that invented the experimental results out of thin air when they said that they had measured E=mc2 to be accurate to 1 part in 1 million? That's the only option you have. In order for your model to be correct, those physicists must have been lying (or at least exceedingly stupid).
I don't think they invented the results in this case. I think physicists invent corrections to false mathematical equations and this can be tested by concluding the proposed experiment.
-
I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.
Do the experiment.
Publish the details here.
Break the conspiracy.
Or don't.
-
The point you keep missing is that your idea "needs" E to not be equal to MC^2
But we know that, in fact, E is equal to MC^2
So your idea can not be right.
-
You don't have data for the proposed experiment.
I think curving charged particles in magnetic fields to test accuracy of E=mc2 don't tell us anything useful about the results of the proposed experiment.
So let me get this straight: if I have performed multiple, high-precision experiments demonstrating that water has mass, you are telling me that those experiments don't tell us anything useful about whether a glass full of water has more mass than an empty glass? The only difference between that and your proposed scenario is that you replace the water with energy and the empty glass with a piece of metal.
I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.
You mean like the way that there was a conspiracy to keep the results from quantum physics experiments and relativity experiments a secret in order to protect funds for classical physics projects?
Oh, right.
That never happened.
Your claim W increases at increasing T has not been experimentally proven.
Right, just like we have to actually measure the mass of a glass full of water in order to know for sure that it weighs more than an empty glass...
#ResultsRequired
By no one but you, apparently.
I don't think they invented the results in this case.
If they didn't invent the results, then why are you telling us they are unreliable? You trust the results of a few ambiguous papers you found on the Internet more than you trust the numerous, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the validity of E=mc2.
I think physicists invent corrections to false mathematical equations and this can be tested by concluding the proposed experiment.
If E=mc2 was a false mathematical equation, it would have been revealed as false by all of the experiments that have been done to test it in the past. Please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass?
-
So let me get this straight: if I have performed multiple, high-precision experiments demonstrating that water has mass, you are telling me that those experiments don't tell us anything useful about whether a glass full of water has more mass than an empty glass? The only difference between that and your proposed scenario is that you replace the water with energy and the empty glass with a piece of metal.
In my theory water adds positive "charge" instead of "mass" and I don't understand the rest of this analogy.
You mean like the way that there was a conspiracy to keep the results from quantum physics experiments and relativity experiments a secret in order to protect funds for classical physics projects?
...or this analogy.
Right, just like we have to actually measure the mass of a glass full of water in order to know for sure that it weighs more than an empty glass...
...or this analogy.
By no one but you, apparently.
And tax payers funding research and many scientists looking for unification theories and many people put-off by traditional physics.
If they didn't invent the results, then why are you telling us they are unreliable? You trust the results of a few ambiguous papers you found on the Internet more than you trust the numerous, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the validity of E=mc2.
A few ambiguous papers measuring W reduction at increasing T are all I found in the literature. You are talking about different experiments. E=mc2 has Not been validated by the proposed experiment.
If E=mc2 was a false mathematical equation, it would have been revealed as false by all of the experiments that have been done to test it in the past.
Or in the future. #ResultsRequired
Please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass?
E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.
-
In my theory water adds positive "charge" instead of "mass" and I don't understand the rest of this analogy.
Regardless of what you think causes mass, the fact of the matter is that water has mass. If you take something with a given amount of mass (say 10 grams of water) and put it in a container (say, a 5-gram glass), the addition of the water did not somehow magically make the glass of water weigh less than the 5-gram mass of the empty glass. Yet that's exactly what you say that energy does when you put it into something. You say that putting energy (which we know has mass) into something makes it less massive. That's exactly the same as saying that putting water into an empty glass makes the glass less massive. It contradicts all logic.
...or this analogy.
Your claim is that scientists invent conspiracies in order to hide new physics discoveries. My analogy is that important discoveries which fundamentally changed the way that we view physics (such as quantum physics and relativity) were not the subject of scientists trying to cover them up with conspiracies. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that radical discoveries in physics are covered up by conspiracies. So there's no reason to believe (and no evidence) that your proposed model is being covered up by some conspiracy.
...or this analogy.
It's exactly what I said. We don't have to weigh a glass of water in order to know that adding water to it made it heavier. It's for the exact same reason that we know that adding energy to something makes it heavier too.
And tax payers funding research and many scientists looking for unification theories and many people put-off by traditional physics.
Name some (other than the ones that wrote those articles and yourself, I mean). I want citations.
A few ambiguous papers measuring W reduction at increasing T are all I found in the literature. You are talking about different experiments. E=mc2 has Not been validated by the proposed experiment.
You're dodging my question. Why do you think the results are existing experiments are unreliable? What blaring error did they make in their calculations or measurements?
Or in the future. #ResultsRequired
Then why did the experiments designed to test it in the past not already falsify it?
E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you to "please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass." Explain how that experiment got the results it did if E=mc2 is false.
I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.
What interests? I'm not even a scientist. Whether or not E=mc2 is true or not has no bearing on my personal life or job.
-
Regardless of what you think causes mass, the fact of the matter is that water has mass. If you take something with a given amount of mass (say 10 grams of water) and put it in a container (say, a 5-gram glass), the addition of the water did not somehow magically make the glass of water weigh less than the 5-gram mass of the empty glass. Yet that's exactly what you say that energy does when you put it into something. You say that putting energy (which we know has mass) into something makes it less massive. That's exactly the same as saying that putting water into an empty glass makes the glass less massive. It contradicts all logic.
I still don't understand this analogy.
Your claim is that scientists invent conspiracies in order to hide new physics discoveries. My analogy is that important discoveries which fundamentally changed the way that we view physics (such as quantum physics and relativity) were not the subject of scientists trying to cover them up with conspiracies. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that radical discoveries in physics are covered up by conspiracies. So there's no reason to believe (and no evidence) that your proposed model is being covered up by some conspiracy.
Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?
You're dodging my question. Why do you think the results are existing experiments are unreliable? What blaring error did they make in their calculations or measurements?
The biggest error was to build physics on F=ma which has not been thoroughly tested.
Then why did the experiments designed to test it in the past not already falsify it?
I suspect modifications to mathematical equations could bridge the gap between predictions and results.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you to "please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass." Explain how that experiment got the results it did if E=mc2 is false.
I am not familiar with the details of the experiment to determine how they got the results they did. All I know is W reduction at increasing T disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired
What interests? I'm not even a scientist. Whether or not E=mc2 is true or not has no bearing on my personal life or job.
I am sure the "master" on space and time wouldn't like relativity falsified.
-
I still don't understand this analogy.
To put it in the simplest terms i possibly can: you claim that adding mass to something paradoxically makes it lose mass. That's what my water analogy meant.
Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?
Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.
The biggest error was to build physics on F=ma which has not been thoroughly tested.
Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?
I suspect modifications to mathematical equations could bridge the gap between predictions and results.
They were testing the equation itself, not some mythical modification of it. Do you think they were idiots that don't know how to do basic algebra?
I am not familiar with the details of the experiment to determine how they got the results they did. All I know is W reduction at increasing T disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired
Which is why we know it doesn't happen: you don't make things lighter by adding mass to them.
I am sure the "master" on space and time wouldn't like relativity falsified.
You do realize that the quote in my signature came from another user on this board named "Thebox", right? Not from me. I put it there specifically because of how ridiculous of a statement it was.
-
To put it in the simplest terms i possibly can: you claim that adding mass to something paradoxically makes it lose mass. That's what my water analogy meant.
No. I claim adding heat to something makes it lose mass.
Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.
Why ?
Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?
Not by the proposed experiment.
They were testing the equation itself, not some mythical modification of it. Do you think they were idiots that don't know how to do basic algebra?
I think E=mc2 is based on previously modified equations.
Which is why we know it doesn't happen: you don't make things lighter by adding mass to them.
Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.
You do realize that the quote in my signature came from another user on this board named "Thebox", right? Not from me. I put it there specifically because of how ridiculous of a statement it was.
I didn't realize that. Either way, you are a relativist who is reluctant to test a prediction of his theory against mine.
-
E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.
Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?
You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?
Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.
As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.
The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?
-
Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?
You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?
Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.
As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.
The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?
Long scrolls don't impress me especially when they say nothing new. #ResultsRequired
-
Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?
You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?
Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.
As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.
The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?
Long scrolls don't impress me especially when they say nothing new. #ResultsRequired
I'm not asking you to be impressed, I'm asking you to answer the questions.
-
No. I claim adding heat to something makes it lose mass.
Heat is a form of energy and energy has mass. The experiments I've mentioned before clearly demonstrate this. So you are claiming that adding mass makes something less massive.
Why ?
Either nobody thought to do it or didn't think it was important.
Not by the proposed experiment.
We haven't tested the Sun's temperature with a thermometer either. Do you think we absolutely must do that in order to know that the Sun is hot?
I think E=mc2 is based on previously modified equations.
Evidence please.
Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.
A theory that has massive experimental support.
I didn't realize that. Either way, you are a relativist who is reluctant to test a prediction of his theory against mine.
That's like saying that I'm reluctant to test a prediction of the Earth being round because I believe the Earth is round.
-
Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired
-
Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired
It would be pointless for any of us here to perform your experiment. If we did it and got a negative result, you would complain that either (1) we didn't do the experiment correctly, (2) it wasn't precise enough to measure the effect, or (3) we actually got a positive result but are lying about it for whatever reason. I fear the same would be true for anyone you asked to do the experiment. That's why it's best if you do it yourself.
-
Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired
You just told the world you have no balls.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlWAp1MW4AAFAVZ.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DlWAp1MW4AAFAVZ.jpg)
You do not seem to have grasped the concept of "evidence".
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dpwvu_8UYAECjTT.jpg)
-
We already have the results.
They were old news when you started this thread and I posteddthis.
I think the experiment should be carried out using the principle of a calorimeter.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Because that experiment is done frequently.
There's a bit of kit specially for doing it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
You can rest assured that, if your ideas were right, people would have noticed.
So you are wrong.
And we have posted other evidence since then.
Your inability to understand this is your problem; not ours.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dpwvu_8UYAECjTT.jpg)
Might I suggest an alternative strategy? Perhaps instead of wasting your time talking to people who are either (1) incapable of performing your experiment, or (2) unwilling to perform your experiment, why don't you go looking for someone who is (in other words, nobody here, apparently).
-
Might I suggest an alternative strategy?
I think the strategy he needs to ditch is the one where he ignores evidence.
It might also be good if he adopted a plan which involved learning science.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DsXdufgW0AA33ch.jpg)
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46143399
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46143399
You do realize this experiment has been carried out at a constant temperature ?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46143399
You do realize this experiment has been carried out at a constant temperature ?
You do realise that it shows that W=mg?
You do realise that was the thread's title?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-46143399
You do realize this experiment has been carried out at a constant temperature ?
You do realise that it shows that W=mg?
You do realise that was the thread's title?
It shouldn't be too difficult to add a heater and a thermometer to the experiment.
-
https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/111313-experiment-to-test-wmg/
http://www.sciforums.com/threads/experiment-to-test-w-mg.160128/
http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/30613-experiment-to-test-wmg/?hl=yaniv
http://www.sciencechatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=33780&p=330222&hilit=Yaniv#p330222
https://thescienceforum.org/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=2576&p=31673&hilit=Yaniv#p31673
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/experiment-to-test-w-mg-t55108.html
https://www.debate.org/forums/science/topic/114415/
http://www.thephysicsforum.com/personal-theories-alternative-hypothesis/6950-experiment-test-w-mg.html
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
Thankyou for clarifying your role as a spammer.
-
Thankyou for clarifying your role as a spammer.
And even after all of those people explained to him why his idea is nonsense, he still doesn't get it. This only solidifies just how unteachable he is.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxF31KjUwAIIJcn.jpg)
-
We already have the results.
They were old news when you started this thread and I posteddthis.
I think the experiment should be carried out using the principle of a calorimeter.
I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Because that experiment is done frequently.
There's a bit of kit specially for doing it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis
You can rest assured that, if your ideas were right, people would have noticed.
So you are wrong.
And we have posted other evidence since then.
Your inability to understand this is your problem; not ours.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DxF31KjUwAIIJcn.jpg)
This should be considered spam at this point.
-
Just a basic simple question...
2 identical cups filled with equal amounts of coffee.
1 is super hot & d other super cold.
Now wich cuppa coffee wud weigh more?
I suppose d heated 1, rite?
Coz in comparison wit d cold 1, d heated 1 has absorbed energy stored inside it in d form of heat, rite???
-
Just a basic simple question...
2 identical cups filled with equal amounts of coffee.
1 is super hot & d other super cold.
Now wich cuppa coffee wud weigh more?
I suppose d heated 1, rite?
Coz in comparison wit d cold 1, d heated 1 has absorbed energy stored inside it in d form of heat, rite???
In this particular case, I'd actually say the hot cup is lighter because evaporation would remove much more mass than the heat would add to it. If the cups were airtight, then yes, the hot cup would be heavier.
-
Blah...
This should be considered spam at this point.
I disagree; I think it should be thought of as trolling, rather than spam.
-
I disagree; I think it should be thought of as trolling, rather than spam.
In either case, I think the topic should be locked. If nothing useful has come out of it in ten pages, it probably never will.
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dz6fGAhWoAAoPA9.jpg)
-
This topic has now descended into trolling and has generated complaints. It has been locked