0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2017 14:08:36You 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.
What would you proposed test add?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2017 14:58:11What would you proposed test add?Falsifying conservation of mass.
So, the only purpose would be to (fail to) falsify the conservation of mass.
Or do you somehow think that you are so important that your opinion should hold sway over logic and experiment?
If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floorIf 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?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/11/2017 10:10:11If I drop a ten pound weight, it falls on the floorIf 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)
I don't know which experiments you are talking about.
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'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.
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.
If you use Kirchoff’s correctly there is no problem
we have used this analysis for years with leds and laser junction devices.
The problem here some of the current is converted to infrared radiation.
"The optical signal is connected and related to the electrical signals but until now its been dismissed in a transistor".
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.
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.
... but is a problem for the theory.
My name will be remembered for theorizing this prediction.
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.