Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: Yaniv on 06/01/2023 14:22:46
-
In my theory the size of the earth is balanced by opposing forces; gravity and pressure. The force of gravity decreases over time and internal pressure pushes the expansion of the earth. Sea levels are determined by (liquid) water volume to surface area ratio. The volume of water increases over time by volcanic gassing (CO2, N2, H2O...). In time, the surface area of earth increases exponentially and volume of water increases at a decelerating rate. At the beginning of the Archean eon, after Theia impacted the earth and blew its atmosphere away, sea levels began to rise and by the end of the Proterozoic eon flooded the entire globe. All the continents but a few tall volcanic mountains were under water. By the Cambrian period the increase in surface area exceeded the rate of water accumulation and sea levels began to drop. Fossils of non-vascular plants are found in the Ordovician, vascular plants in the Silurian and the first forests in the Devonian implying parts of the continents were permanently above water. Had the moon not formed earth's atmosphere would have been as thick as Venus.
-
In my theory
You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
by the end of the Proterozoic eon flooded the entire globe.
If gravity was so much greater then, that would mean that the sun would have a much higher rate of fusion which would have resulted in the earth being sterilized.
-
In my theory the size of the earth is balanced by opposing forces; gravity and pressure.
That's pretty close to correct.
The force of gravity decreases over time
That's inconsistent with the evidence and with the laws of physics.
You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
He has a plausible conjecture.
He also has an error.
-
by the end of the Proterozoic eon flooded the entire globe.
If gravity was so much greater then, that would mean that the sun would have a much higher rate of fusion which would have resulted in the earth being sterilized.
The rate of cellular repair and division exceeded the rate of degradation. As to the origin of life the rate of RNA polymerization and replication exceeded the rate of degradation. If not on the equator at the poles.
-
by the end of the Proterozoic eon flooded the entire globe.
If gravity was so much greater then, that would mean that the sun would have a much higher rate of fusion which would have resulted in the earth being sterilized.
The rate of cellular repair and division exceeded the rate of degradation. As to the origin of life the rate of RNA polymerization and replication exceeded the rate of degradation. If not on the equator at the poles.
Please show the maths you used to calculate the repair rates and the radiation flux.
-
Measurements of supernova indicate that the value of the gravitational constant has changed very little (or not at all) over the past 9 billion years: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.1534.pdf
-
Measurements of supernova indicate that the value of the gravitational constant has changed very little (or not at all) over the past 9 billion years: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1402.1534.pdf
I heard distant galaxies are more luminous than expected consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
-
As the earth expands further its atmosphere will get thinner, global temperatures will drop, primary productivity and biodiversity reduced, at some point the oceans will freeze entombing the remains of life. At this stage the earth will look like Mars and I will head to Venus.
-
I heard distant galaxies are more luminous than expected consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
Do you have a citation for that?
-
I heard distant galaxies are more luminous than expected consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
Do you have a citation for that?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-clues-about-how-ancient-galaxies-lit-up-the-universe
-
I heard distant galaxies are more luminous than expected consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
Do you have a citation for that?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-clues-about-how-ancient-galaxies-lit-up-the-universe
This is not a citation for a decreasing force of gravity, please provide one
-
This is not a citation for a decreasing force of gravity, please provide one
I don't expect to find any paper in the scientific literature contradicting the fixed constants of physics. Higher rates of star formation and hydrogen fusion in the past are consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
-
I heard distant galaxies are more luminous than expected consistent with a decreasing force of gravity.
Do you have a citation for that?
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-clues-about-how-ancient-galaxies-lit-up-the-universe
So, to be clear, you don't have a citation for your idea.
-
In my theory polar ice caps and deserts are recent Cenozoic features.
-
I don't expect to find any paper in the scientific literature contradicting the fixed constants of physics.
Then don’t claim a citation, that’s misrepresentation
-
In my theory
You don't have a theory.
Stop pretending you do.
-
Video Removed
Describe your theory here rather than link to external sites
-
By the Cambrian period the increase in surface area exceeded the rate of water accumulation and sea levels began to drop
So the 'biblical flood' occurred before people or even mammals existed? The flood you are describing seems different than the flood depicted in the bible.
Of course the mechanism you are claiming is just unevidenced imagination.
-
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-clues-about-how-ancient-galaxies-lit-up-the-universe
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this study is evidence for brighter stars 13 billion years ago, that in no way contradicts the study I posted. What I posted shows that there is no evidence for a change in the gravitational constant over the past 9 billion years, whereas this link you posted is about a time period well before that. The Earth has only been around for about 4.5 billion years. So the study I posted earlier covers the entire time that Earth has been here while the one you posted does not.
I would also like to point out that solids and liquids are very difficult to compress. Therefore, even if Earth's gravity was higher in the past, that would not have had much impact on its size (unless its gravity was much, much higher, in which case it would have been orbiting much closer to a much hotter Sun, making life far less likely to exist).
-
Quote from: Yaniv on 06/01/2023 14:22:46
In my theory the size of the earth is balanced by opposing forces; gravity and pressure.
That's pretty close to correct.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1612007997441556481/photo/1
-
Quote from: Yaniv on 06/01/2023 14:22:46
In my theory the size of the earth is balanced by opposing forces; gravity and pressure.
That's pretty close to correct.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1612007997441556481/photo/1
I would prefer it if you didn't associate a quote from me with a picture of a fairy tale.
You seem not to have understood what I meant.
You say "the size of the earth is balanced by opposing forces; gravity and pressure."
Well,- yes.
And the same is true of a table.
If I make a table out of a piece of wood exactly 5 cm thick and I cut the legs to be exactly 95 cm long then the table will be slightly less than 100 cm tall because the legs will be shortened slightly by the weight of the table-top.
The same is true of the earth.
It is slightly compressed by its own weight.
The effect is small.
But the important thing is that the force of gravity has been shown to be practically constant for at least as long as the earth has existed.
So, since the earth formed and settled down, it has stayed more or less the same size. (It will grow and shrink slightly with changes in temperature).
The magical nonsense you are talking about has nothing to do with reality.
-
So the 'biblical flood' occurred before people or even mammals existed? The flood you are describing seems different than the flood depicted in the bible.
There was a great flood. We crawled out of it in the Devonian.
-
We crawled out of it in the Devonian.
Our distant ancestors did, but humans didn't.
-
There was a great flood.
What evidence do you have of this?
-
There was a great flood.
What evidence do you have of this?
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by mudflows under water. In time, the mud compacted and cemented into rocks.
-
There was a great flood.
What evidence do you have of this?
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by wet mudflows under water. In time, the mud dried up and cemented into rocks.
That's evidence of many small floods, not one big one.
Do you not realise that, if there was actually scientific evidence for the "biblical" flood, it wouldn't be "biblical"?
-
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by wet mudflows under water.
How can moraines be both 'glacial deposits' and 'wet mudflows under water'?
-
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by wet mudflows under water.
How can moraines be both 'glacial deposits' and 'wet mudflows under water'?
I believe dropstones and moraines from late proterozoic rocks have been formed by mud flows under water. In time the mud was compacted and cemented into stone.
Many geologists interpret dropstones and moraines from late proterozoic rocks as evidence for Snowball Earth. Not in my theory.
-
I believe dropstones and moraines from late proterozoic rocks have been formed from wet mud flows under water.
Beliefs are nice, but this is a science site, so evidence is what we are looking for.
You also don't need to point out that things that are under water are wet.
Many geologists interpret these rocks as evidence for Snowball Earth. Not in my theory.
You still don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
-
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by wet mudflows under water.
How can moraines be both 'glacial deposits' and 'wet mudflows under water'?
I believe dropstones and moraines from late proterozoic rocks have been formed from wet mud flows under water. As sea levels dropped sedimentary mud beds dried up and hardened into rocks.
Many geologists interpret these rocks as evidence for Snowball Earth. Not in my theory.
Which geologists? Provide references.
-
Which geologists? Provide references.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowball_Earth
-
Glacial deposits from snowball earth (dropstones & moraines) were formed by wet mudflows under water.
Mudflows underwater have a very different flow pattern to those on land.
The flow underwater does not form moraines in the same patterns as formed by glaciers. This is particularly true of terminal and lateral moraines which are similar to debris piled up by either a bulldozer or plough where the ice has displaced the debris and then melted. This pattern does not occur underwater because the saturated mud does not pile in the same way, but is flatter; also there is no equivalent of ice to melt and leave isolated piles.
-
My theory posits the sun was hotter in the past and discards faint young sun paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
-
My theory
You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
also has an error.
You don't have a theory.
Stop pretending you do.
You still don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
Please stop telling the lie that you have a theory.
-
My theory posits the sun was hotter in the past and discards faint young sun paradoxes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faint_young_Sun_paradox
You still haven't addressed this:
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/jpl/new-clues-about-how-ancient-galaxies-lit-up-the-universe
Assuming, for the sake of argument, that this study is evidence for brighter stars 13 billion years ago, that in no way contradicts the study I posted. What I posted shows that there is no evidence for a change in the gravitational constant over the past 9 billion years, whereas this link you posted is about a time period well before that. The Earth has only been around for about 4.5 billion years. So the study I posted earlier covers the entire time that Earth has been here while the one you posted does not.
-
There was a great flood.
What evidence do you have of this?
Most fossils form in water when organisms are buried under a thick layer of mud. Fossils of marine animals such as trilobites and ammonites are found on all continents indicating during the paleozoic and mesozoic eras large parts of the continents must have been submerged under the sea.
-
There was a great flood.
What evidence do you have of this?
Most fossils form in water when organisms are buried under a thick layer of mud. Fossils of marine animals such as trilobites and ammonites are found on all continents indicating during the paleozoic and mesozoic eras large parts of the continents must have been submerged under the sea.
That's evidence of many small floods, not one big one.
Do you not realise that, if there was actually scientific evidence for the "biblical" flood, it wouldn't be "biblical"?
-
That's evidence of many small floods, not one big one.
Where is the rest of the water ?
-
There was roughly as much water then as there is today.
Most of it is in oceans and seas.
Why did you not realise that?
-
There was roughly as much water then as there is today.
Most of it is in oceans and seas.
Why did you not realise that?
Did you read the age of the ocean basins ? The oceans did not exist before the mesozoic era.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=ujTaSEBh&id=69837669841F54336997C97E460E92111A8F1AFB&thid=OIP.ujTaSEBh-qlpH905DQEqTQHaEc&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.thoughtco.com%2fthmb%2f5x28WHk9dBDittWH5buj2R0o9_k%3d%2f2560x1539%2ffilters%3afill(auto%2c1)%2f2008_age_of_oceans_noplates-58b5a1943df78cdcd87e6818.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.ba34da484061faa9691fdd390d012a4d%3frik%3d%252bxqPGhGSDkZ%252byQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1539&expw=2560&q=age+of+seafloor&simid=608043416895315159&FORM=IRPRST&ck=4344573AB4BD3C73F1C16AF6B7A9F51C&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
-
There was roughly as much water then as there is today.
Most of it is in oceans and seas.
Why did you not realise that?
Did you read the age of the ocean basins ? The oceans did not exist before the mesozoic era.
https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=ujTaSEBh&id=69837669841F54336997C97E460E92111A8F1AFB&thid=OIP.ujTaSEBh-qlpH905DQEqTQHaEc&mediaurl=https%3a%2f%2fwww.thoughtco.com%2fthmb%2f5x28WHk9dBDittWH5buj2R0o9_k%3d%2f2560x1539%2ffilters%3afill(auto%2c1)%2f2008_age_of_oceans_noplates-58b5a1943df78cdcd87e6818.jpg&cdnurl=https%3a%2f%2fth.bing.com%2fth%2fid%2fR.ba34da484061faa9691fdd390d012a4d%3frik%3d%252bxqPGhGSDkZ%252byQ%26pid%3dImgRaw%26r%3d0&exph=1539&expw=2560&q=age+of+seafloor&simid=608043416895315159&FORM=IRPRST&ck=4344573AB4BD3C73F1C16AF6B7A9F51C&selectedIndex=0&ajaxhist=0&ajaxserp=0
If you are trying to do science, you need to stop looking for reasons why you think you might be right, and look at the evidence that you might be wrong.
If there's evidence that your idea is wrong then... you are wrong and you have to come up with a better idea.
For example
You think you have found a page that says there were no oceans.
Is that possible, or could you have misunderstood it.
It's fairly easy to check.
If there were no oceans, where was the water?
It must have been somewhere.
So there must have been oceans.
Of course there were oceans- they were in slightly different places to the ones we have today.
So a map that shows that the age of the rocks that make up today's sea floor doesn't tell you that there were no oceans long ago.
-
If there were no oceans, where was the water?
It must have been somewhere.
That's right. According to the expanding earth theory the water was on top of the continents.
-
According to the expanding earth theory
My theory
You don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
also has an error.
You don't have a theory.
Stop pretending you do.
You still don't have a theory, you have a conjecture.
Please stop telling the lie that you have a theory.
-
Of course there were oceans- they were in slightly different places to the ones we have today.
Where did they disappear ?
-
Of course there were oceans- they were in slightly different places to the ones we have today.
Where did they disappear ?
In the places where you find fossils of sea creatures.
But it's beside the point.
You have no evidence of a great flood because anything you find in the fossil record might have been because of a small, local sea.
-
It is entirely possible that the region known to the authors of whatever became Genesis was indeed flooded. If the prevailing model at the time was a flat earth, they would reasonably have presumed that the entire planet was flooded. A fair guess from limited knowledge, but, like a lot of failed hypotheses, not worth worrying about.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 03:54:09
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:22:37
Of course there were oceans- they were in slightly different places to the ones we have today.
Where did they disappear ?
In the places where you find fossils of sea creatures.
Fossils of sea creatures are found on the continents. Do we agree an ancient ocean covered the continents ?
-
Do we agree an ancient ocean covered the continents ?
No. There is no evidence that all the continents were covered by the ocean at the same time.
-
Do we agree an ancient ocean covered the continents ?
Of course we don't agree with that. It's silly.
-
Do we agree an ancient ocean covered the continents ?
No. There is no evidence that all the continents were covered by the ocean at the same time.
In the expanding earth theory the supercontinent Pangea covered the entire surface of the earth, on a smaller volume, submerged by an ancient global ocean.
-
In the expanding earth theory
It is not a theory.
It is a lie.
The idea is impossible for reasons that have already been posted here.
Your continued insistence on talking about it looks like trolling.
You should stop doing that.
-
In the expanding earth theory the supercontinent Pangea covered the entire surface of the earth, on a smaller volume, submerged by an ancient global ocean.
That is not a theory, that is a silly idea that has not been thought through.
-
The shapes and distribution of continents are simpler to explain with expansion than plate tectonics - Occam's razor.
-
The shapes and distribution of continents are simpler to explain with expansion than plate tectonics - Occam's razor.
You seriously think that Occam's razor implies that planets magically grow larger? Seriously?? ???
-
You seriously think that Occam's razor implies that planets magically grow larger? Seriously??
In my theory internal pressure pushes the expansion of the earth.
yaniv-stern.webnode.page
-
Is there any particular reason you keep ignoring what I've posted about the gravitational constant not changing detectably over the life time of the Earth?
-
Is there any particular reason you keep ignoring what I've posted about the gravitational constant not changing detectably over the life time of the Earth?
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/788709923
-
Is there any particular reason you keep ignoring what I've posted about the gravitational constant not changing detectably over the life time of the Earth?
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/788709923
So all you have as 'evidence' is nonsense you have made up?
Also, how does flooding in the Devonian have anything to do with a biblical flood?
-
The shapes and distribution of continents are simpler to explain with expansion than plate tectonics - Occam's razor.
It's true that the continents more or less fit together.
There are two possible explanations.
One: they drift- which is possible and can be observed today- it causes earth quakes etc. We can measure the drift using GPS.
Two: the earth is expanding for no reason and manages to do so in a way that we can not detect.
Occam's razor only favours one of those options.
-
Is there any particular reason you keep ignoring what I've posted about the gravitational constant not changing detectably over the life time of the Earth?
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/788709923
I'm not going to log into some web page just to watch your video.
-
The very title of this thread is totally misleading: the biblical flood fairytale was supposed to have happened ~5500 years ago so how can this be connected with the geology of the planet hundreds or thousands of million years ago?
-
Is there any particular reason you keep ignoring what I've posted about the gravitational constant not changing detectably over the life time of the Earth?
https://vimeo.com/manage/videos/788709923
For some reason, the video you link there does not have any sound for me so I have no idea what it is talking about. Please summarize it for me and explain how it addresses the gravitational constant evidence.
-
I think Occam's Razor was at its sharpest at Reply #45, which explains everything with minimal assumption.
-
In my theory geological folds occur before and faults after (or soon before) mud hardens into stone.
-
In my theory geological folds occur before and faults after mud hardens into stone.
Have you any evidence for that nonsensical staement?
-
In my theory
Why do you keep lying?
Are you a troll?
-
In my theory volcanic ridges snaking below continents push uplift of mountain ranges.
-
In my theory volcanic ridges snaking below continents push uplift of mountain ranges.
It is not a theory. It a a number of nonsensical assertions without any evidence.
-
In my theory
Why do you keep doing that?
Why do you keep saying you have a theory when it is clear that you do not?
-
In the expanding earth theory rift valleys are expansion cracks.
-
In the expanding earth theory rift valleys are expansion cracks.
The expanding earth WAG is completely unevidenced and silly.
-
In the expanding earth theory rift valleys are expansion cracks.
Be careful, as you are starting to run afoul of rule #5:
The site is not for evangelising your own pet theory. It is perfectly acceptable that you should post your own theory up for discussion, but if all you want to do is promote your own idea and are not inviting critical debate about it, then that will not be acceptable.
You keep making statements about your idea without addressing the criticism given by other members. That is starting to look like "evangelizing". If you do not remedy this, we may have to close your thread.
-
In the expanding earth theory rift valleys are expansion cracks.
All you are doing now is making yourself look more of a fool by posting this utter nonsense.
-
In the expanding earth theory
In my theory
Why do you keep doing that?
Why do you keep saying you have a theory when it is clear that you do not?
-
The earth accreted, melted, and differentiated, with lighter atoms on the surface and heavier atoms towards the core. Lighter and older continental granite versus heavier and younger oceanic basalt are simpler to comprehend with expansion than plate tectonics.
-
The earth accreted, melted, and differentiated, with lighter atoms on the surface and heavier atoms towards the core. Lighter and older continental granite versus heavier and younger oceanic basalt are simpler to comprehend with expansion than plate tectonics.
Repeatedly posting nonsense without responding to member's criticism is just spamming/trolling.
-
simpler to comprehend
Your inability to understand science doesn't make it wrong.
-
The expanding earth WAG is completely unevidenced and silly.
I am reminded of Father George Lemaitre arguing for an expanding universe in a static universe mind frame.
-
The expanding earth WAG is completely unevidenced and silly.
I am reminded of Father George Lemaitre arguing for an expanding universe in a static universe mind frame.
He had evidence.
You do not.
Do you understand the difference?
-
For some reason, the video you link there does not have any sound for me so I have no idea what it is talking about. Please summarize it for me and explain how it addresses the gravitational constant evidence.
-
I am reminded of Father George Lemaitre arguing for an expanding universe in a static universe mind frame.
I'm reminded of the people who post pseudoscientific WAGs that they can't backup with supporting evidence.
-
The expanding earth WAG is completely unevidenced and silly.
I am reminded of Father George Lemaitre arguing for an expanding universe in a static universe mind frame.
And with your posts I am reminded of Father Abraham and the Smurfs - they have as much scientific vailidity as what you laughably refer to as a 'theory'.
-
He had evidence.
You do not.
Do you understand the difference?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.0
-
He had evidence.
You do not.
Do you understand the difference?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.0
So you reference one of your own threads where you showed a complete lack of understanding of science, posted nonsense and spammed?
-
He had evidence.
You do not.
Do you understand the difference?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.0
Wouldn't it have been easier for you to just say "no"?
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....
I did not remove my post. Who removed my post ?
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....
I did not remove my post. Who removed my post ?
Probably somebody who realised it was pointless obfuscation.
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....
I did not remove my post. Who removed my post ?
Probably somebody who realised it was pointless obfuscation.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/experiment-to-test-w-mg-t55108.html
-
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=15652
That page just shows that you are consistent, not that you are right.
I note he has removed the post....
I did not remove my post. Who removed my post ?
Probably somebody who realised it was pointless obfuscation.
http://www.rationalskepticism.org/pseudoscience/experiment-to-test-w-mg-t55108.html
I think the rules have something to say about posting here to drive traffic to other sites.
If you think you made a valid point at some other forum, just make the same point here.
We don't need to look through dozens of people telling you why you are wrong.
We already know that.
-
I predict frequency and intensity of earthquakes should increase and volcanic activity should decrease in the future.
-
I predict frequency and intensity of earthquakes to increase and volcanic activity to decrease in the future.
Over what timescale, and to what extent?
-
I predict frequency and intensity of earthquakes to increase and volcanic activity to decrease in the future.
Based on what? Where is your evidence? What mechanism?
Just throwing nonsense out there does not make it true.
-
I predict frequency and intensity of earthquakes to increase and volcanic activity to decrease in the future.
Based on what? Where is your evidence? What mechanism?
Just throwing nonsense out there does not make it true.
In my theory the exponential expansion of the earth stretches and cracks the crust to produce earthquakes. Volcanic activity should drop as the earth cools.
-
I'm still waiting for you to address what I've said about the gravitational constant.
-
In my theory
Stop saying you have a theory.
-
I'm still waiting for you to address what I've said about the gravitational constant.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and all derived physical equations and constants. #ResultsRequired
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma
Only if it happened.
And it doesn't.
We know this because we can observe that f=ma.
Do you understand what a scientific theory is?
Please explain what you think "scientific theory" means and why you think your impossible ideas somehow count as theories.
ResultsRequired
So why have you not provided any results?
-
I predict frequency and intensity of earthquakes to increase and volcanic activity to decrease in the future.
Based on what? Where is your evidence? What mechanism?
Just throwing nonsense out there does not make it true.
In my theory the exponential expansion of the earth stretches and cracks the crust to produce earthquakes. Volcanic activity should drop as the earth cools.
You do not have a theory. What you have is a number of unevidenced assertions that you appear to have made up out of thin air. In popular parlance these are known as brain farms.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma
Huh?! Work (W=F*s) decreases as temperature increases in a vacuum?
What in the hell are talking about?
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma
Huh?! Work (W=F*s) decreases as temperature increases in a vacuum?
What in the hell are talking about?
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma
Huh?! Work (W=F*s) decreases as temperature increases in a vacuum?
What in the hell are talking about?
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
That is because your 'theory' is a series of nonsensical brain farts.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum...
No such thing has ever been verified. Existing evidence strongly goes against that.
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
That is not a counterargument. It is an unevidenced assertion. So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum...
No such thing has ever been verified. Existing evidence strongly goes against that.
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
That is not a counterargument. It is an unevidenced assertion. So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
#ResultsRequired
-
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
By how much?
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 08:40:47
ResultsRequired
So why have you not provided any results?
-
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
If it was true we would know because the Moon's orbit round the earth wold depend on the temperature of the moon.
And we know that the moon gets a bit warmer when it (and the Earth) are near to the sun, but it cools when it is far from the sun
So, when you say "ResultsRequired"
Do you not realise we already have the result of the experiment- the solar system does it for us.
And you are simply wrong.
The effect that you ex[pet does not happen.
-
#ResultsRequired
This is not a counterargument.
-
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
By how much?
More than zero.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 08:40:47
ResultsRequired
So why have you not provided any results?
I could not find scientists interested to conclude the experiment.
-
My theory predicts weight (W) should decrease at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum.
If it was true we would know because the Moon's orbit round the earth wold depend on the temperature of the moon.
And we know that the moon gets a bit warmer when it (and the Earth) are near to the sun, but it cools when it is far from the sun
So, when you say "ResultsRequired"
Do you not realise we already have the result of the experiment- the solar system does it for us.
And you are simply wrong.
The effect that you ex[pet does not happen.
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 08:40:47
ResultsRequired
So why have you not provided any results?
I could not find scientists interested to conclude the experiment.
So, because you have no evidence, you claim it is true.
Do you think that is sensible?
-
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
Either you say the weight changes, or you say it does not.
You can't have it both ways.
-
So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
-
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate.
Either you say the weight changes, or you say it does not.
You can't have it both ways.
You can if W≠mg.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 08:40:47
ResultsRequired
So why have you not provided any results?
I could not find scientists interested to conclude the experiment.
So, because you have no evidence, you claim it is true.
Do you think that is sensible?
I think it is sensible to wait for the results of the experiment.
-
So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
I don't expect physicists to give up scriptures and conclude the experiment.
-
So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
I don't expect physicists to give up scriptures and conclude the experiment.
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
-
So please show me actual evidence that the gravitational constant is wrong.
I don't expect physicists to give up scriptures and conclude the experiment.
Which perfectly demonstrates your lack of understanding of science and the scientific method.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
They are also pretty slow at carrying out experiments to show that volcanic activity is caused by dragons or that the moon is made of cheese.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
The onus is on you to provide evidence not others to provide it for you.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
So is this an admission that you have no evidence?
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
So is this an admission that you have no evidence?
I never received the results of the experiment.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
So is this an admission that you have no evidence?
I never received the results of the experiment.
And, because you have not done the experiment and have not received information from anyone who has done the experiment, you do not know what the outcome of teh experiment would be.
So you have no evidence..
But, even though you have no evidence, you still claim you are right.
Do you do that sort of thing in your normal life, or only when posting here?
-
I think it is sensible to wait for the results of the experiment.
Then shut up until they do.
-
You can if W≠mg.
But it is- by definition.
-
You can if W≠mg.
But it is- by definition.
The definition of a mathematical equation is value of two expressions are equal (indicated by the sign =). Do you have the results of the experiment showing W=mg ?
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
So is this an admission that you have no evidence?
I never received the results of the experiment.
So then no, you don't have evidence.
-
I asked for evidence. You have yet to supply any. Until then, we have no reason to believe that the gravitational constant is wrong.
Experimentalists are pretty slow at concluding the experiment.
So is this an admission that you have no evidence?
I never received the results of the experiment.
So then no, you don't have evidence.
You seem reluctant to conclude the experiment. Why?
-
You seem reluctant to conclude the experiment. Why?
I can't conclude something I never started. There are also two other problems:
(1) I don't have the equipment needed to do such an experiment.
(2) Even if I did have such equipment, you haven't told me the needed precision that I would need to measure to. We already know what a positive result would look like (any decrease in weight with temperature would be a positive result). But what about a negative result? If someone measured the weight and found that it didn't change with temperature, would you accept that result or would you say, "your experiment wasn't precise enough"? That's why you have to define the measurement limits. Otherwise, you can keep saying, "your experiment wasn't precise enough" after an endless number of increasingly precise tests that found no weight change.
-
You seem reluctant to conclude the experiment. Why?
I can't conclude something I never started. There are also two other problems:
(1) I don't have the equipment needed to do such an experiment.
(2) Even if I did have such equipment, you haven't told me the needed precision that I would need to measure to. We already know what a positive result would look like (any decrease in weight with temperature would be a positive result). But what about a negative result? If someone measured the weight and found that it didn't change with temperature, would you accept that result or would you say, "your experiment wasn't precise enough"? That's why you have to define the measurement limits. Otherwise, you can keep saying, "your experiment wasn't precise enough" after an endless number of increasingly precise tests that found no weight change.
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
And what is the mechanism for that? Also your reference to Glaser - could you complete so we can find and assess the validity?
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
And what is the mechanism for that? Also your reference to Glaser - could you complete so we can find and assess the validity?
The mechanism for W reduction at increasing T in vacuum is described in my theory on my website here yaniv-stern.webnode.page.
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
And what is the mechanism for that? Also your reference to Glaser - could you complete so we can find and assess the validity?
The mechanism for W reduction at increasing T in vacuum is described in my theory on my website here yaniv-stern.webnode.page.
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
Summarise it here - don't link to a website. If you have a credible theory you should be able to do this. Myself and others do not want to wade through a website.
-
20 grams metals heated by 5 degrees C in air lost 100 micrograms (Glaser,1990). Let's start there.
In order to best measure the effect, you'd want to maximize the difference in temperature between your measurements. That being said, what kind of relationship are you expecting? Does doubling the temperature double the weight loss?
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
And what is the mechanism for that? Also your reference to Glaser - could you complete so we can find and assess the validity?
The mechanism for W reduction at increasing T in vacuum is described in my theory on my website here yaniv-stern.webnode.page.
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
-
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
-
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
You seem to have forgotten that you already lost this argument
The evidence is collected every day.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.msg537466#msg537466
-
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
You seem to have forgotten that you already lost this argument
The evidence is collected every day.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.msg537466#msg537466
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
-
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
So since you have changed the topic I assume you have given up on your biblical flood idea?
-
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
So since you have changed the topic I assume you have given up on your biblical flood idea?
Nope, we are still flooded in sh1t and I am waiting for an opening to walk into the third temple in Jerusalem.
-
Nope, we are still flooded in sh1t and I am waiting for an opening to walk into the third temple in Jerusalem.
The biblical flood was not water; it was a flood of feces? What does a temple in Jerusalem have to do with anything? Are you talking about science or religion?
-
Nope, we are still flooded in sh1t and I am waiting for an opening to walk into the third temple in Jerusalem.
The biblical flood was not water; it was a flood of feces? What does a temple in Jerusalem have to do with anything? Are you talking about science or religion?
I am talking of a place where science and religions meet above the lowlier world of matter.
-
I am talking of a place where science and religions meet above the lowlier world of matter.
Where is this place you are referring to?
-
I am talking of a place where science and religions meet above the lowlier world of matter.
Where is this place you are referring to?
The Third Temple in Jerusalem.
-
The Third Temple in Jerusalem.
So are you saying that scientific experiments will agree with religion in the third temple in Jerusalem? If so then we should run those experiments. Where is the third temple in Jerusalem?
-
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
If that's the case, then that would mean that the metal would lose all of its weight if it absorbed 200,000 times as many calories as in the experiment you mentioned (because a weight loss of 100 micrograms multiplied by 200,000 equals 20 grams, the weight of the metal sample). Right?
-
The Third Temple in Jerusalem.
So are you saying that scientific experiments will agree with religion in the third temple in Jerusalem? If so then we should run those experiments. Where is the third temple in Jerusalem?
No. The third temple has not been built yet. Don't let this side chat of us distract ourselves from concluding the experiment.
-
The Third Temple in Jerusalem.
So are you saying that scientific experiments will agree with religion in the third temple in Jerusalem? If so then we should run those experiments. Where is the third temple in Jerusalem?
No. The third temple has not been built yet. Don't let this side chat of us distract ourselves from concluding the experiment.
Give it is barking mad nonsense with religious overtones, it is entirely pertinent.
-
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
So the paper you refer to in support of what you laughably refer to as a theory has no validity?
-
I am talking of a place where science and religions meet
They don't meet.
One values evidence over dogma; the other values dogma over evidence.Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
You seem to have forgotten that you already lost this argument
The evidence is collected every day.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71794.msg537466#msg537466
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
But you would bet that the sky fairy is real, so we shouldn't trust your opinions, should we?
-
I expect a linear relationship between heat absorbed and weight loss. Doubling the calories absorbed should double the weight loss.
If that's the case, then that would mean that the metal would lose all of its weight if it absorbed 200,000 times as many calories as in the experiment you mentioned (because a weight loss of 100 micrograms multiplied by 200,000 equals 20 grams, the weight of the metal sample). Right?
Wrong. The metal should vaporize long before.
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
-
The third temple has not been built yet.
You can see the future?
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
-
The third temple has not been built yet.
You can see the future?
No. I can't tell the future. The future of civilization has not been determined yet. Actions at present determine the future. The results of the experiment could provide me the keys to the temple.
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.
Yet you are yet to provide evidence that your claim is true .
-
No. The future of earthly matters has not been determined yet. The results of the experiment could provide the keys to the temple.
I believe you have lost your tenuous grip on reality.
-
A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?
No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.
Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.
We don't need astrophysical calculations to know that gases can reach millions of degrees. We can get gases that hot inside of fusion reactors right here on Earth where we can measure the temperature firsthand. Look up the Tokamak.
By the way, weight reducing with temperature would not disprove F=ma.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.
Only if it exists, and we know it doesn't.
Why do you do it?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?
Do you think telling these silly stories gets you into favour with God?
-
By the way, weight reducing with temperature would not disprove F=ma.
Explain ?
-
Explain ?
All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.
-
Explain ?
All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
-
Explain ?
All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.
So measuring a loss of weight with an increase in temperature would not be a sufficient test to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.
-
Explain ?
All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.
So measuring a loss of weight with an increase in temperature would not be a sufficient test to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.
W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?
-
W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?
It wouldn't, because:
If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.
-
I would also like to point out that you can perform the experiment yourself if you really want to. If it's that important to you, save up some money and invest in the equipment:
You can buy a high-precision scale. This one can weigh a 210 gram weight with up to 0.001 gram precision. Given the numbers you posted before, a 20 gram weight changed by 0.0001 grams when heated 5 Celsius. That means a 200 gram weight should change by 0.001 grams. That's within the scale's range: https://ussolid.com/u-s-solid-0-001-g-precision-balance-digital-lab-scale-1-mg-analytical-electronic-balance-with-2-lcd-screens-210-g-x-0-001g.html?gclid=CjwKCAiArNOeBhAHEiwAze_nKLdZdl-utC1i70_29v87YslyjFqlzM-w6ZVIJTQgv-MtleitdSOqKRoC2lsQAvD_BwE
You can also buy vacuum chambers and copper.
-
W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?
It wouldn't, because:
If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.
Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?
-
Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?
No. Mass can still be conserved if it is going somewhere else.
So not only would you need to demonstrate that weight drops with rising temperature, but you would also need to show that the mass and weight change at different rates.
-
Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?
No. Mass can still be conserved if it is going somewhere else.
Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?
-
Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?
Somewhere else within the same Universe (presumably). That would depend upon the specifics of the hypothesis.
-
Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?
Somewhere else within the same Universe (presumably). That would depend upon the specifics of the hypothesis.
Into higher dimensions than three ?
-
Into higher dimensions than three ?
Unlikely, but then again, that depends on the hypothesis. I am not citing any specific hypothesis. Anyone can speculate on any number of places the mass goes. The exact location is irrelevant. The point of this thought exercise is to demonstrate that a loss of weight with increasing temperature can be perfectly consistent with F=ma.
-
Into higher dimensions than three ?
Unlikely, but then again, that depends on the hypothesis. I am not citing any specific hypothesis. Anyone can speculate on any number of places the mass goes. The exact location is irrelevant. The point of this thought exercise is to demonstrate that a loss of weight with increasing temperature can be perfectly consistent with F=ma.
I don't accept this nonsense. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma. #ResultsRequired
-
I don't accept this nonsense.
Then give a reason for it. If you can dismiss something as nonsense without explaining why, then we can do the same thing with your model.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.
No it doesn't, as I've explained. If mass is lost as weight is lost, then F=ma is preserved.
#ResultsRequired
Then do the experiment and get the results. Buy the equipment like I said in the earlier post.
-
I don't accept this nonsense.
Then give a reason for it. If you can dismiss something as nonsense without explaining why, then we can do the same thing with your model.
In my theory the difference between forces determines weight and the ratio between forces determines rate of fall. You didn't read my theory. Did you ?
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.
No it doesn't, as I've explained. If mass is lost as weight is lost, then F=ma is preserved.
This contradicts conservation of mass.
#ResultsRequired
Then do the experiment and get the results. Buy the equipment like I said in the earlier post.
Earlier you said you can't do the experiment. So can't I. This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
-
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.
This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
It is and you accuse them of lying
I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.
-
In my theory
Stop lying about having a theory.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.
The equation F=ma was invented by a human, Isaac Newton, not by God.
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.
The equation F=ma was invented by a human, Isaac Newton, not by God.
And the word force and its definition were invented by man, not God.
Did you somehow think you had a point there?
-
In my theory the difference between forces determines weight and the ratio between forces determines rate of fall. You didn't read my theory. Did you ?
First of all, I don't know what that has to do with what I said. I was pointing out that you were claiming that what I said was nonsense without giving a proper explanation for why it was nonsense.
Secondly, the rate of acceleration of a body is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Say we have two sets of two cars tied together by a rope pulling against each other. In the first set, Car A is pulling with a force of 1 millinewton and Car B is pulling with a force of 2 millinewtons. The net pulling force is thus 1 millinewton towards Car B. In the second set, Car C is pulling with a force of 1 kilonewton and Car D is pulling with a force of 2 kilonewtons. The net pulling force is thus 1 kilonewton towards Car D. The ratio of the forces in both scenarios is 2.
You cannot honestly think that the cars will accelerate by the same amount in both scenarios.
This contradicts conservation of mass.
Mass transfer does not violate conservation of mass. A piece of uranium loses mass over time, but that is because the lost mass is being carried away by subatomic particles.
Earlier you said you can't do the experiment. So can't I. This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.
The reason you can't is because you don't own the needed equipment, but the needed equipment is available for purchase. You can therefore solve that problem by buying the equipment and doing the experiment yourself. If you can't find anyone else to do the experiment for you, you might as well save up some money and do it yourself.
-
what that has to do with what
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1619767253351927810/photo/1
Don't forget to click on the link to view image.
In my theory positively charged objects experience positive repulsive forces from all directions. When forces from opposite directions balance an object remains suspended in space and weightless (a). When forces from opposite directions are unequal, an object is pushed by the stronger force towards the weaker force (b). A free object moves towards the weaker force while a stationary object gains weight. (c) The difference between opposite forces determines weight, a larger difference is heavier and a smaller difference is lighter. The theory proposes a hotter object is less positively charged and should experience a smaller difference between forces and should weigh less than a colder more positively charged object. Rate of fall (g) is determined by the ratio between forces acting on an object.
-
Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.
-
Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.
-
In my theory
You should probably stop preaching about your idea.
-
Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.
If they experience equal forces then they will have the same weight, because weight is a force.
-
Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.
If they experience equal forces then they will have the same weight, because weight is a force.
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.
-
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.
But you said earlier that the force (i.e the weight) will depend on temperature.
It does not.
And you are still lying about your PoS idea being a theory.
Why is that?
-
In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.
But you said earlier that the force (i.e the weight) will depend on temperature.
It does not.
And you are still lying about your PoS idea being a theory.
Why is that?
In my theory T decreases the charge, forces and weight of an object, but not it's rate of fall.
-
If charge is considered mass in your model, and objects lose charge (and thus mass) when they get hot, then why not just say that the mass and weight are both lost at the same rate as temperature increases? That way, objects falling at the same rate regardless of temperature happens naturally as a consequence of F=ma instead of in contradiction to it.
-
If charge is considered mass in your model, and objects lose charge (and thus mass) when they get hot, then why not just say that the mass and weight are both lost at the same rate as temperature increases? That way, objects falling at the same rate regardless of temperature happens naturally as a consequence of F=ma instead of in contradiction to it.
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
-
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
If the particles carrying away charge have mass, then mass would indeed be lost by the object being heated. The total mass of the Universe would still be the same, though, since those mass-carrying particles would still be out floating around somewhere.
There is a second experiment that would test your idea: dropping charged objects in a vacuum. Since you claim that the Earth has a net positive charge, then a negatively-charged object should fall faster than a positively-charged object (since the negative charge would obviously be directly attracted to the overall positive charge of the Earth, whereas a positive charge would have to rely on a local negative dipole to be attracted to the Earth (which is a weaker effect)).
-
Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 01:26:38
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
If the particles carrying away charge have mass, then mass would indeed be lost by the object being heated. The total mass of the Universe would still be the same, though, since those mass-carrying particles would still be out floating around somewhere.
In my theory the charge of the universe should remain conserved throughout it's evolution.
There is a second experiment that would test your idea: dropping charged objects in a vacuum. Since you claim that the Earth has a net positive charge, then a negatively-charged object should fall faster than a positively-charged object (since the negative charge would obviously be directly attracted to the overall positive charge of the Earth, whereas a positive charge would have to rely on a local negative dipole to be attracted to the Earth (which is a weaker effect)).
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge but could possibly fall faster.
-
In my theory T decreases the charge, forces and weight of an object,
The light emitted by atoms is dependent on the electron charge but it is not dependent on temperature.
so we know you are still wrong.
Why are you still lying about this idea and calling it a theory when you know it doesn't work?
-
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge
Obviously nonsense.
-
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...
That's not entirely true. Looking at your model, you say that a hydrogen atom has a net positive charge slightly more than zero. If you add an extra electron to it (which you identify as the E particle), then it would have a net negative charge. Thus, a hydrogen anion still has a net negative charge in your model.
Also, it looks like you are modeling the neutron as a combination of an E and P particle in one part of your website, but later on identify an E and P combination as a gamma ray (photon). In reality, the neutron and photon are two very different particles with very different properties.
-
In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge...
That's not entirely true. Looking at your model, you say that a hydrogen atom has a net positive charge slightly more than zero. If you add an extra electron to it (which you identify as the E particle), then it would have a net negative charge. Thus, a hydrogen anion still has a net negative charge in your model.
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
Also, it looks like you are modeling the neutron as a combination of an E and P particle in one part of your website, but later on identify an E and P combination as a gamma ray (photon). In reality, the neutron and photon are two very different particles with very different properties.
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) . I heard gamma rays colliding with atomic particles split into positrons and electrons.
-
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
If that's the case, then your model has been falsified because hydrogen anions exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion It exists in chemical compounds called hydrides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride
The hydrogen anion is actually more stable than a hydrogen atom and an electron separately. We know this because a hydrogen atom releases energy when it catches an extra electron to form a hydride ion (0.754 eV, to be more precise): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page) That isn't just theory, it's been measured: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9ivUHbMLIU
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos)
Neutrons, gamma rays (photons) and neutrinos are all very different particles. Neutrons have a very high rest mass (almost 2,000 times that of an electron), whereas neutrinos have a rest mass much lower than an electron and photons have no rest mass at all. Another difference is that neutrons and neutrinos are fermions (having a spin of 1/2) whereas photons are bosons (with a spin of 1). Then you have the fact that neutrinos can pass through almost anything and are extremely hard to absorb, whereas photons and neutrons are much easier to absorb. Free neutrons will decay in a proton, electron and anti-neutrino, whereas neutrinos and photons are not known to decay. They are all simply different particles.
-
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
And yet they are easy to make.
So, once again, we know that the universe says you are wrong.
What would it take to get you to pay attention to that simple fact?
-
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
If that's the case, then your model has been falsified because hydrogen anions exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_anion It exists in chemical compounds called hydrides: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydride
The hydrogen anion is actually more stable than a hydrogen atom and an electron separately. We know this because a hydrogen atom releases energy when it catches an extra electron to form a hydride ion (0.754 eV, to be more precise): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page) That isn't just theory, it's been measured: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9ivUHbMLIU
Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.
How stable are unbound hydrogen anions in a vacuum ?
-
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .
As Kryptid pointed out these neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays are all very different particles. I am curious how you think that these different particles are all composed of exactly the same parts.
-
PE particles inside nuclears are described as neutrons. Free fast moving PE particles are described as gamma rays (or neutrinos) .
As Kryptid pointed out these neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays are all very different particles. I am curious how you think that these different particles are all composed of exactly the same parts.
PE particles inside nuclears resist curvature in electric and magnetic fields and could substitute neutrons.
E particles travelling faster than X-rays absorbed by a scintillator register a stronger signal and are interpreted as gamma rays. Other gamma ray detectors consist of crystal blocks and detect signals from positrons (P particles) and electrons (E particles) hence should consist of PE particles.
The fastest PE particles in the universe are the most elusive and could substitute neutrinos.
-
Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.
Thermodynamics says otherwise. I already pointed out to you that hydrogen atoms release energy when they gain an electron. That means a hydrogen anion is more stable than a hydrogen atom. If you insist on them not being bound in molecules, then look at what the Wiki page said that I linked you: "The hydrogen anion is the dominant bound-free opacity source at visible and near-infrared wavelengths in the atmospheres of stars like the Sun and cooler" The Sun is far too hot for there to be molecules there, which means those are free hydrogen anions floating around.
The last paper I linked also stated how free hydrogen anions were created using a laser: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9lHLnbMLIV
PE particles inside nuclears resist curvature in electric and magnetic fields and could substitute neutrons.
No, they can't. Neutrons are too massive. That also wouldn't make sense from a decay standpoint. Like I said before, free neutrons decay into protons, electrons and anti-neutrinos. If neutrons and anti-neutrinos were the same thing, then that would mean that free neutrons decay into themselves as well as other particles. That would violate conservation of mass.
E particles travelling faster than X-rays
X-rays travel at the speed of light. You can't go faster than that.
The fastest PE particles in the universe are the most elusive and could substitute neutrinos.
They can't travel faster than gamma rays because gamma rays already move at the speed of light. You still haven't addressed the differences in mass, spin and stability between the particles.
-
How stable are unbound hydrogen anions in a vacuum ?
Once formed it takes about 73 KJ per mole to break them. If you want to look it up it is called the electron affinity of hydrogen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_affinity_(data_page)
That's roughly a quarter as much energy as is released if you mix the hydrogen with air and explode it.
So, it's quite a lot of energy.Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
And yet they are easy to make.
So, once again, we know that the universe says you are wrong.
What would it take to get you to pay attention to that simple fact?
-
Hydrogen anions as part of molecules or bound to metals are not a good example to prove stability.
Thermodynamics says otherwise. I already pointed out to you that hydrogen atoms release energy when they gain an electron. That means a hydrogen anion is more stable than a hydrogen atom. If you insist on them not being bound in molecules, then look at what the Wiki page said that I linked you: "The hydrogen anion is the dominant bound-free opacity source at visible and near-infrared wavelengths in the atmospheres of stars like the Sun and cooler" The Sun is far too hot for there to be molecules there, which means those are free hydrogen anions floating around.
The last paper I linked also stated how free hydrogen anions were created using a laser: https://zenodo.org/record/1233707#.Y9lHLnbMLIV
In my theory hydrogen atoms consist of P2E + E particles and have a small positive charge and could still interact with an additional E particle. So it's not a knockout blow...for now.
Neutrons are too massive
You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.
X-rays travel at the speed of light. You can't go faster than that.
You can in my theory.
You still haven't addressed the differences in mass,
That applies to both of us.
spin
Orbital E particles in atoms could have a preferred direction - a magnetic field. When the atoms pass through an asymmetric magnetic field, some are attracted and others repelled to produce two beams.
stability
?
-
You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.
We did experiments; we know the mass of the neutron.
1.674927471×10−27 kg
Did you not realise that?
-
You can in my theory.
The experiments show that your idea is wrong.
Why do you insist on calling it a theory?
Do you really not understand the word, or do you just like looking foolish?
-
I assume you realize that for your ideas to be correct, Newtonian physics, relativity, classical mechanics, classical electrodynamics and quantum physics must be wrong.
-
In my theory hydrogen atoms consist of P2E + E particles and have a small positive charge and could still interact with an additional E particle. So it's not a knockout blow...for now.
So now you are contradicting what you said earlier:
Hydrogen anions should be unstable in a positive universe.
What you have just done is called "moving the goalposts": https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Moving_the_goalposts
You can't tell that without the results of the experiment.
Yes you can, because neutrons are much more massive than neutrinos and photons. That is not something theoretical, it is something that has been measured to be true. If your model cannot accommodate that, then it is wrong.
You can in my theory.
You can't in the real world.
That applies to both of us.
No, it doesn't. I am not the one claiming that three different particles with different masses are all the same particle, you are. That doesn't even include all of the other neutral particles that have been observed, such as the Z boson, the Higgs Boson, plus all of the other neutral baryons and neutral mesons.
If your model claims that protons are P2E and neutrons are PE and that charge is what causes mass, then your model predicts that the proton should be heavier than the neutron because it has more total charge (both net charge and gross charge). Yet we have observed from experiment that the neutron is heavier. You would have to enter science denialism territory to claim otherwise (and that doesn't look good for someone with a PhD in one of the sciences).
There is also another problem: you claim that neutrons are made up of a P and E particle attracted to each other by the electromagnetic force. One of the problems with that is that we have indeed observed P and E particles (positrons and electrons) that are bound to each other with the electromagnetic force, and they are not neutrons. Instead, they are positronium atoms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positronium).
Here are two reasons that positronium atoms cannot be neutrons: the measured masses of the two are far too different (neutrons weigh about 940 MeV, whereas positronium atoms weigh only about 1 MeV). Secondly, the sizes are far too different (positronium atoms are about twice as large as hydrogen atoms, whereas neutrons are over 100,000 times smaller than a hydrogen atom).
Orbital E particles in atoms could have a preferred direction - a magnetic field. When the atoms pass through an asymmetric magnetic field, some are attracted and others repelled to produce two beams.
A preferred direction is not what is meant by different values of spin. Yes, +1/2 and -1/2 represent different directions of spin of a particle, but when another particle (like a photon) has a spin of +1 or -1, then it is just a completely different absolute value of spin. So this explanation of yours does not suffice to explain how a neutron and photon can be the same thing. Their absolute spin values are different.
?
Your response is too simple for me to know what you are asking.
-
If your model claims that protons are P2E and neutrons are PE and that charge is what causes mass, then your model predicts that the proton should be heavier than the neutron because it has more total charge
No. In my theory the number of P and E particles to charge ratio determines the curvature in a mass spectrometer. Say, an E particle has a charge of -1 and a P particle has a charge of +1.1. The ratio for an E particle is -1, P particle is +0.9, P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5 and should deflect more and appear lighter than a PE particle with a ratio of +20.
neutrons are much more massive than neutrinos and photons.
Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?
-
The ratio for an E particle is -1
,
P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5
If that's the case, then that means the ratio of deflection for a proton to an electron should be -2.5, leading to a measurement of the proton being 2.5 times heavier. That is not remotely correct: the proton is almost 2,000 times more massive than the electron in reality.
P2E particle has a ratio of +2.5 and should deflect more and appear lighter than a PE particle with a ratio of +20.
2.5 and 20 aren't remotely close to each other, whereas in reality, the proton and neutron very close to each other in mass (the neutron only being a tiny bit heavier). So it's still wrong.
Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?
No.
There are a lot of other things I said that you didn't address.
Also, would you like to explain how a PE particle can decay into a P2E, E and PE particle? That's neutron decay, in case you didn't recognize it.
-
If that's the case, then that means the ratio of deflection for a proton to an electron should be -2.5, leading to a measurement of the proton being 2.5 times heavier. That is not remotely correct: the proton is almost 2,000 times more massive than the electron in reality.
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.
Is the mass of the neutrino determined in a mass spectrometer ?
No.
So its not like for like and a neutrino could end up being a neutron.
the proton and neutron very close to each other in mass
Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?
Also, would you like to explain how a PE particle can decay into a P2E, E and PE particle? That's neutron decay, in case you didn't recognize it.
P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles. P2E2 particles could decay into P2E and E particles or two PE particles.
-
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level
If it's wrong on the quantitative level, then it's still wrong. If your equation is wrong, then you need to fix it.
and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.
No, no it would not. You even admitted as much when you said this:
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
So we have you here saying quite clearly that a changing weight with temperature can be consistent with F=ma. Even if it turned out one day that F=ma was not exactly correct, it's so close to correct that every experiment testing it has found it to be correct. This is something that is done on a regular basis in colleges:
So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again. If you keep doing it, I'm going to start considering it spam and close this thread. So be very careful about how you proceed from here on out. For someone with a PhD in the sciences, you should know better than that.
So its not like for like and a neutrino could end up being a neutron.
No, it cannot. Neutrons are many, many times heavier than neutrinos and are unstable (decaying after about 15 minutes), whereas neutrinos are stable. Neutrons also interact with matter far, far more readily than neutrinos.
Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?
Given that the neutron has no detectable net charge, I very strongly doubt it. Other methods of measuring its mass exist: https://www.nature.com/articles/134237a0
P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.
Except for the fact that they are twice as massive, which isn't an easy thing for particle physicists to miss.
P2E2 particles could decay into P2E and E particles or two PE particles.
That still doesn't add up. Remember, a neutron will decay into a proton, an electron and an anti-neutrino. It makes all three of those particles at once, not just one or the other.
-
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level
If it's wrong on the quantitative level, then it's still wrong.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.
and would like to remind you that W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma and all the equations you use to derive your quantitative values.
No, no it would not. You even admitted as much when you said this:
Quote from: Yaniv on 30/01/2023 01:26:38
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.
I do. And I say that I don't accept derived equation based on conservation of mass.
So we have you here saying quite clearly that a changing weight with temperature can be consistent with F=ma. Even if it turned out one day that F=ma was not exactly correct, it's so close to correct that every experiment testing it has found it to be correct. This is something that is done on a regular basis in colleges:
So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again.
My theory is consistent with the experiment in this video.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620492671931539456/photo/1
Remember to click on link to view image.
Can you measure the mass of a free neutron in a mass spectrometer ?
Given that the neutron has no detectable net charge, I very strongly doubt it.
So neutrons and neutrinos are not curved sufficiently for detection in a mass spectrometer. In my theory neutrons (PE) and neutrinos (PE) are closer to each other than to protons (P2E) and should deflect the least. We don't have a single experiment to test the masses of protons, neutrons and neutrinos and I suspect the masses derived from different experiments are not calibrated correctly.
P2E2 particles have properties very similar and could be confused with PE particles.
Except for the fact that they are twice as massive, which isn't an easy thing for particle physicists to miss.
They do have a tiny charge compared to P, E and P2E particles and could have been missed.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.
Did you miss this?
So let's not see you use that fallacious argument again. If you keep doing it, I'm going to start considering it spam and close this thread. So be very careful about how you proceed from here on out.
As for conservation of mass...
And I say that I don't accept derived equation based on conservation of mass.
Conservation of mass is something guaranteed by Noether's theorem. I want you to look carefully at the word and take note that it says "theorem" and not "theory". A theory is evidence-based, whereas a theorem is proof-based. Big difference. Have you ever heard of Pythagoras's theorem? I'm assuming so, since you apparently have a PhD. It's that same kind of thing.
By rejecting conservation of mass, you are rejecting something that has been proven.
My theory is consistent with the experiment in this video.
Then it is consistent with F=ma.
In my theory neutrons (PE) and neutrinos (PE) are closer to each other than to protons (P2E)
Then your model is wrong because that is incorrect. Neutrons and protons are both baryons while neutrinos are leptons.
We don't have a single experiment to test the masses of protons, neutrons and neutrinos
Nor do you need one. There is more than one way to figure something's mass out.
I suspect the masses derived from different experiments are not calibrated correctly.
Your suspicions are not evidence. If you can't give us evidence that the calibrations are incorrect, then please don't bring it up again.
They do have a tiny charge compared to P, E and P2E particles and could have been missed.
They don't need a charge at all to have their mass measured in the first place, so this is irrelevant.
-
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves your quantities.
Did you miss this?
No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.
Conservation of mass is something guaranteed by Noether's theorem.
Is she God ?
By rejecting conservation of mass, you are rejecting something that has been proven.
The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.
-
Is she God ?
No, she is real.
I gather my explanation is sound on a qualitative level
NO. IT IS NOT.
It is wrong at every level.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass, F=ma
But we know that mass is conserved.
It's one of the few results in science that is actually proven to be true.
And, because we know it is true, we know that your idea is false.
You need to stop preaching it.
-
No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.
Which experiment are you saying hasn't been done?
-
No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.
Even if it did, the results couldn't contradict conservation of mass because conservation of mass has been proven.
Is she God ?
A person doesn't have to be God in order to discover a mathematical proof. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? A2 + B2 = C2 in Euclidean space. That is also a proof. Pythagoras wasn't God.
Do you know what Noether's theorem is?
The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.
It's not "rushing to conclusions" when you already have proof. Even if weight did drop with a temperature increase, that is something that would have to be simultaneously consistent with conservation of mass.
-
Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620730118980395012/photo/1
-
Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.
https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1620730118980395012/photo/1
Bollocks.
-
Object B at close proximity to object A has a strong charge polarization and is pushed towards object A more strongly than is pushed away from object A. Object C at longer distance from object A has a weak charge polarization and is pushed away from object A more strongly than pushed towards object A, accounting for the attractive force of gravity at shorter and repulsive force of gravity at longer astronomical distances.
By ignoring what I've said and posting more self-promotion, you are starting to run afoul of rule #5 again.
Do you want to have a productive discussion about your model or not?
-
Glaser paper is below.
https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Response-of-apparent-mass-to-thermal-gradients-Gl%C3%A4ser/dd77e00123f2e0efe31f02f9b0b717a98620172c
I looked at your reference. The author states: 'it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass.'
The author forgot to include the 'control' experiment in his paper, weighing the metals in vacuum, to conclude air convection is responsible for changes in weight.
So you quote a paper as evidence, and then when it is pointed out that it does not support your your argument, you claim that it is invalid due to lack of a control. You are either lying or a fool. Likely both.
-
In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.
-
In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.
It is not a theory- it is deluded nonsense from somebody who cannot even be consistent about evidence (see comment above). Repeating your delusions is just spamming.
-
In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.
You keep making statements but do not back them up with any compelling evidence. It would be helpful if you picked one of your ideas and spent some time showing the evidence for that idea.
-
In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.
You are breaking rule #5 again. Please address what I've said or this thread will be locked.
-
In my theory the expansion of the earth is linked to the expansion of the universe.
You are breaking rule #5 again. Please address what I've said or this thread will be locked.
I think this has been the fate of his previous threads.
The question is why would we let him do it again?
-
My God Yahweh promised me a Temple.
-
My God Yahweh promised me a temple.
Sue for breach of promise.
-
My God Yahweh promised me a temple.
And what does belief in a fictional sky fairy have to do with science? No wonder you cannot provide evidence.
-
And what does belief in a fictional sky fairy have to do with science?
A strong negative correlation.
-
My God Yahweh promised me a temple.
What does that have to do with whether or not your model is correct?
-
In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.
-
In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.
Your idea isn't a theory.
Your idea is wrong.
-
In my theory the Hadean Eon should be placed before and the Archean Eon after the formation of the moon.
Just stop posting crap.
-
In my theory Archean and Proterozoic Eons should merge together characterized by increasing sea levels and global temperatures.
-
In my theory Archean and Proterozoic Eons should merge together characterized by increasing sea levels and global temperatures.
Are you trying to get yourself banned?
-
In my theory the Phanerozoic Eon is characterized by declining sea levels and global temperatures.
-
As the earth expands further its atmosphere will get thinner, global temperatures will drop, primary productivity and biodiversity reduced, at some point the oceans will freeze entombing the remains of life. At this stage the earth will look like Mars and I will head to Venus.
So in your lifetime the oceans will freeze and in some way I don't understand that will make the earth look like Mars. Additionally, we will have interplanetary space travel and people will travel to Venus for some reason.
This scenario clearly a fantasy and has no legitimate place on a science site.
-
So in your lifetime
No. I am glad not to live that long.
people will travel to Venus for some reason.
By the time the earth will freeze Venus could be ready for colonization. I can't find any other warm place to go.
-
So in your lifetime
No. I am glad not to live that long.
people will travel to Venus for some reason.
By the time the earth will freeze Venus could be ready for colonization. I can't find any other warm place to go.
Please just stop with this idiocy.
-
No. I am glad not to live that long.
You said you would travel to Venus, I guess that was just a misstatement.
-
@Yaniv , I'm still waiting for you to address what I've said:
No. Science has not published the results of the experiment.
Even if it did, the results couldn't contradict conservation of mass because conservation of mass has been proven.
Is she God ?
A person doesn't have to be God in order to discover a mathematical proof. Remember the Pythagorean theorem? A2 + B2 = C2 in Euclidean space. That is also a proof. Pythagoras wasn't God.
Do you know what Noether's theorem is?
The results of the experiment have not been published to rush to conclusions.
It's not "rushing to conclusions" when you already have proof. Even if weight did drop with a temperature increase, that is something that would have to be simultaneously consistent with conservation of mass.
By trying to change the subject, you are avoiding dialogue and just promoting your model instead. If you don't stop violating rule #5, I'm closing this thread. This is your last warning.
-
My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.
-
My theory predicts PE2 particles (anti-protons) should be unstable in a positively charged universe.
Well then your model has been falsified, as antiprotons are very much real.
Since you have ignored my last post yet again, and you were warned about it, this thread is getting closed. Don't open a new thread about your model or it too will be closed and you will be suspended for trying to bypass a thread locking.