This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Yaniv
It shouldn't be too difficult to add a heater and a thermometer to the experiment.You do realise that it shows that W=mg?
You do realise that was the thread's title?
Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?Long scrolls don't impress me especially when they say nothing new. #ResultsRequired
You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?
Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.
As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.
The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?
To put it in the simplest terms i possibly can: you claim that adding mass to something paradoxically makes it lose mass. That's what my water analogy meant.No. I claim adding heat to something makes it lose mass.
Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.Why ?
Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?Not by the proposed experiment.
They were testing the equation itself, not some mythical modification of it. Do you think they were idiots that don't know how to do basic algebra?I think E=mc2 is based on previously modified equations.
Which is why we know it doesn't happen: you don't make things lighter by adding mass to them.Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.
You do realize that the quote in my signature came from another user on this board named "Thebox", right? Not from me. I put it there specifically because of how ridiculous of a statement it was.I didn't realize that. Either way, you are a relativist who is reluctant to test a prediction of his theory against mine.
Regardless of what you think causes mass, the fact of the matter is that water has mass. If you take something with a given amount of mass (say 10 grams of water) and put it in a container (say, a 5-gram glass), the addition of the water did not somehow magically make the glass of water weigh less than the 5-gram mass of the empty glass. Yet that's exactly what you say that energy does when you put it into something. You say that putting energy (which we know has mass) into something makes it less massive. That's exactly the same as saying that putting water into an empty glass makes the glass less massive. It contradicts all logic.I still don't understand this analogy.
Your claim is that scientists invent conspiracies in order to hide new physics discoveries. My analogy is that important discoveries which fundamentally changed the way that we view physics (such as quantum physics and relativity) were not the subject of scientists trying to cover them up with conspiracies. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that radical discoveries in physics are covered up by conspiracies. So there's no reason to believe (and no evidence) that your proposed model is being covered up by some conspiracy.Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?
You're dodging my question. Why do you think the results are existing experiments are unreliable? What blaring error did they make in their calculations or measurements?The biggest error was to build physics on F=ma which has not been thoroughly tested.
Then why did the experiments designed to test it in the past not already falsify it?I suspect modifications to mathematical equations could bridge the gap between predictions and results.
That's not what I asked you. I asked you to "please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass." Explain how that experiment got the results it did if E=mc2 is false.I am not familiar with the details of the experiment to determine how they got the results they did. All I know is W reduction at increasing T disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired
What interests? I'm not even a scientist. Whether or not E=mc2 is true or not has no bearing on my personal life or job.I am sure the "master" on space and time wouldn't like relativity falsified.
So let me get this straight: if I have performed multiple, high-precision experiments demonstrating that water has mass, you are telling me that those experiments don't tell us anything useful about whether a glass full of water has more mass than an empty glass? The only difference between that and your proposed scenario is that you replace the water with energy and the empty glass with a piece of metal.In my theory water adds positive "charge" instead of "mass" and I don't understand the rest of this analogy.
You mean like the way that there was a conspiracy to keep the results from quantum physics experiments and relativity experiments a secret in order to protect funds for classical physics projects?...or this analogy.
Right, just like we have to actually measure the mass of a glass full of water in order to know for sure that it weighs more than an empty glass......or this analogy.
By no one but you, apparently.And tax payers funding research and many scientists looking for unification theories and many people put-off by traditional physics.
If they didn't invent the results, then why are you telling us they are unreliable? You trust the results of a few ambiguous papers you found on the Internet more than you trust the numerous, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the validity of E=mc2.A few ambiguous papers measuring W reduction at increasing T are all I found in the literature. You are talking about different experiments. E=mc2 has Not been validated by the proposed experiment.
If E=mc2 was a false mathematical equation, it would have been revealed as false by all of the experiments that have been done to test it in the past.Or in the future. #ResultsRequired
Please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass?E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.
It's confidence in data.You don't have data for the proposed experiment.
If you don't think experimental data is factual (or at least as close to fact as one can philosophically reach), then there's no point in doing experiments of any kind because obviously experiments don't tell us anything useful.I think curving charged particles in magnetic fields to test accuracy of E=mc2 don't tell us anything useful about the results of the proposed experiment.
So then you are positing a conspiracy?I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.
How can you disprove something that's already been proven?Your claim W increases at increasing T has not been experimentally proven. #ResultsRequired
Do you think that physicists are part of some massive conspiracy that invented the experimental results out of thin air when they said that they had measured E=mc2 to be accurate to 1 part in 1 million? That's the only option you have. In order for your model to be correct, those physicists must have been lying (or at least exceedingly stupid).I don't think they invented the results in this case. I think physicists invent corrections to false mathematical equations and this can be tested by concluding the proposed experiment.
We know from the before-mentioned experiments that energy has mass. Therefore, by saying that mass increasing with temperature is "faith, not fact", you most certainly are saying that the high-precision experiments used to determine the accuracy of E=mc2 are "faith, not fact".Your claim W increasing with T is "faith" based on your confidence in your theory. We don't have the "facts".
I suspect all physical equations based on F=ma are false and over the years developed and corrected by addition of new functions to match results and E=mc2 is a reduced expression of many equations.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and provides support for my view on the evolution of physics.
Either do it, or shut up about it.Had I done the experiment myself you would have discarded the results as quickly as you discarded the results of the references provided. I want this experiment concluded by the best experimentalists on the planet.
We know that the change in mass is too small to measure directly.We don't know if the change in W is too small to measure because we haven't completed the experiment.
Did it occur to you that this may reflect your comprehension, rather than the analogies themselves?I think his analogies are an attempt to confuse, deflect and discourage scientists from concluding the most important experiment in history of physics.
It isn't necessary to do so when we already have enough information about the laws of physics to tell us what will happen.Are you suggesting the laws of physics should not be tested anymore ?
They're perfectly apt analogies. You claim that, despite mountains of evidence that E=mc2 is correct, we can't use it to make accurate predictions about the effect that thermal energy has on mass.You are welcome to make predictions about the effect of T on W. Next is to test your predictions against results.
You claimed that an experiment which determined that E=mc2 is accurate to 1 part in 1 million (in addition to many other previous confirmatory experiments) is "faith, not fact". If you can call some kinds of high-precision, hard data "faith, not fact", then there's nothing keeping you from doing the same to other forms of high-precision, hard data.No. I claim your statement W does Not change at increasing T is faith because we don't have the results of the experiment.
Like the Sun's temperature, for example. Or do you just have some kind of special double standard that you only apply to E=mc2 that you let other scientific principles get a free pass on?I think had it been possible to place a thermometer in the sun it would have been a great experiment to test if it's readings agree with theoretical predictions.
It has to be. We know from E=mc2 that energy has an associated mass. Where there is extra energy, there is extra mass to go with it. Heat is a form of energy. So an object must weigh more when it is hot than when it is cold.This is a statement of faith, not fact.
Just as it isn't necessary to weigh heated metal in a vacuum to establish that extra energy adds extra mass to an object.References provided hints to the contrary added energy subtracts weight of an object.
It has been.E=mc2 has Not been tested by the proposed experiment.
The equation is a consequence of relativity.
Relativity has been tested many times to high precision
So, there's no sensible argument that the equation is wrong.
The prediction is that the change in mass will be far too small to measure for any practical temperature range.Now an experiment is required to test if your prediction matches the results.