[Yaniv (OP)]

The first and second bulb look equally bright to me. I suspect there is something either wrong with the circuit or with the third bulb. I've seen other videos where all of the light bulbs in the series are equally bright, which supports the idea of the third bulb either being nearly burned out, having a damaged contact or some other problem:

Example 1:

Example 2:

Example 3:

So it looks like you've just shot your model in the foot. Since your model predicts that light bulbs normally become sequentially dimmer on a series circuit whereas in reality they normally don't, then you've falsified your own model.

A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable. Even if this prediction of my theory is wrong, weighing a heated metal in vacuum should be completed to test conservation of mass and open the way to new theories. #ResultsRequired

[Kryptid]

All this is no excuse not to conclude my experiment to test conservation of mass.

(1) It's already been tested over and over for many decades and never once been found to fail.
(2) There is no reason to believe that your proposed experiment will change that notion. Some uncontrolled, unreplicated results from a couple of other people whose results are inconsistent with each other is not a good reason to believe that conservation of mass fails. It's rather like the claims of people who say that they have built successful perpetual motion machines.

You are talking about different experiments to weighing a heated metal in vacuum.

Let's be clear about something here: the existence of weight reduction in heated metal would not be confirmation of the accuracy of your model. Your model violates the laws of physics, whereas hot metal weighing less would not necessarily do so. It's possible, for example, that the weight loss could be due to the existence of another force that opposes gravity instead of the actual mass of the metal becoming less. Although that would make the metal weigh less, it would not make the metal have less mass.

He says something about increasing resistance of the whole circuit. This should dim all light bulbs equally ?

Nope. See here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mzQYpTK_FXo

If you accept conservation of mass disproved then F=ma can be used to describe several macroscopic phenomena and any extensions to this equation based on conservation of mass falsified.

F=ma is not based on conservation of mass.

In my theory the whole concept of mass is replaced with charge.

Protons are almost 2,000 times as heavy as electrons even though they have the same magnitude of charge. Neutrinos and Z-bosons have mass but no charge (with the Z-boson being much heavier than even a proton). There is no correlation between charge and mass.

I don't really understand relevance of this paragraph.

I'm saying that temperature does not automatically increase because molecules have extra room to move.

A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.

Complete speculation.

Even if this prediction of my theory is wrong, weighing a heated metal in vacuum should be completed to test conservation of mass and open the way to new theories. #ResultsRequired

Then we should test to make sure that mass is conserved on all of the planets, then make sure it's conserved every minute of the year, then make sure it's conserved in all cells of every animal, then make sure it's conserved when those animals are in different emotional states, then make sure it's conserved when it's raining outside, then make sure it's conserved in the Earth's core, ad infinitum...

[Bored chemist]

Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ?

Just spotted the irony of this.
Scientists do actually know how to measure gravity- they use a gravimeter.
Essentially it works by very carefully weighing a bit of metal, in a carefully thermostated box.
Perhaps you should try to find a second and one + tweak the temperature control.

[Yaniv (OP)]

(1) It's already been tested over and over for many decades and never once been found to fail.

There results of my experiment are not in the literature.

(2) There is no reason to believe that your proposed experiment will change that notion. Some uncontrolled, unreplicated results from a couple of other people whose results are inconsistent with each other is not a good reason to believe that conservation of mass fails. It's rather like the claims of people who say that they have built successful perpetual motion machines.

The fact only the results of these uncontrolled and unreplicated experiments appear in the literature makes me suspicious a link between weight and temperature could actually exist.

It's possible, for example, that the weight loss could be due to the existence of another force that opposes gravity instead of the actual mass of the metal becoming less. Although that would make the metal weigh less, it would not make the metal have less mass.

Absolutely true. The first stage is to test if such a link really exists and second to come with all possible explanations and eliminate them one by one through experiments.

I'm saying that temperature does not automatically increase because molecules have extra room to move.

But in liquids they are still very close together.

Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy.

Molecules in liquids seem to me to have more average kinetic energy than molecules in solids.

A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.

Complete speculation.

To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode. I have seen videos on Youtube showing current remains the same in all locations but not sure about the precision of the measurements. This is an important prediction that could falsify my theory. Therefore I would like to see experiments repeated at highest precision measurable to test if more electrons entering than leaving the circuit or if exactly equal number of electrons entering as leaving the circuit which would falsify my theory.

[Kryptid]

There results of my experiment are not in the literature.

Of course not. They don't have to be. There are literally an infinite number of experiments that do not have results published in literature. It's like complaining that such-and-such an experiment hasn't yet been done to test the Earth's roundness. It isn't necessary.

The fact only the results of these uncontrolled and unreplicated experiments appear in the literature makes me suspicious a link between weight and temperature could actually exist.

A lot of people suspect a lot of things. Doesn't mean there's merit to it.

Absolutely true. The first stage is to test if such a link really exists and second to come with all possible explanations and eliminate them one by one through experiments.

If you can find someone who has the ability and willingness to do your experiment, be my guest. We have good reason to believe that such a thing doesn't happen though, like the particle accelerator thing I mentioned.

But in liquids they are still very close together.

It ultimately doesn't matter. If the molecules of the same substance in liquid form have the same kinetic energy as those in the solid, then it's the same temperature. Their distances apart don't matter.

Molecules in liquids seem to me to have more average kinetic energy than molecules in solids.

I don't know what this sentence means.

To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode. I have seen videos on Youtube showing current remains the same in all locations but not sure about the precision of the measurements. This is an important prediction that could falsify my theory. Therefore I would like to see experiments repeated at highest precision measurable to test if more electrons entering than leaving the circuit or if exactly equal number of electrons entering as leaving the circuit which would falsify my theory.

Your model has already been falsified because it violates at least three conservation laws. The circuit thing is just redundant.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Of course not. They don't have to be. There are literally an infinite number of experiments that do not have results published in literature. It's like complaining that such-and-such an experiment hasn't yet been done to test the Earth's roundness. It isn't necessary.

My experiment should appear in the literature.

If you can find someone who has the ability and willingness to do your experiment, be my guest. We have good reason to believe that such a thing doesn't happen though, like the particle accelerator thing I mentioned.

I understand why you are not interested to conclude the experiment.

It ultimately doesn't matter. If the molecules of the same substance in liquid form have the same kinetic energy as those in the solid, then it's the same temperature. Their distances apart don't matter.

Molecules in solids can vibrate and rotate but molecules in liquids also move around. Only a physicist can claim molecules in liquids and solids are moving at the same speed.

 

Your model has already been falsified because it violates at least three conservation laws. The circuit thing is just redundant.

You are afraid to test conservation laws. The circuit thing is an important experiment to me.

[Bored chemist]

You are afraid to test conservation laws.

Nope, I know they work.
It's been proven.
Were you aware of that?

I don't mean they have been tested a lot and nobody has found a problem; I mean the conservation laws are a proven mathematical truth.
They can only be wrong if you can show the error in this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem

So, if your idea suggests that the conservation laws are not followed, then we know your idea is wrong- without needing any experiment.

Incidentally, you are also known to be wrong about electrical current into and out of something- where you say "To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirchhoff%27s_circuit_laws

And you still haven't grasped the fact that your notion isn't a theory; why is that, is it some sort of delusion of grandeur?

[Kryptid]

My experiment should appear in the literature.

Which is an opinion.

I understand why you are not interested to conclude the experiment.

I wouldn't mind it being done. I just think it's unlikely to show anything anomalous and as such shouldn't be something that scientists should be put in the hot seat to get done. They have more important things to do.

Molecules in solids can vibrate and rotate but molecules in liquids also move around.

That doesn't automatically make one hotter than the other.

Only a physicist can claim molecules in liquids and solids are moving at the same speed.

Well, of course. Scientific knowledge ultimately comes from scientists doing science...

You are afraid to test conservation laws. The circuit thing is an important experiment to me.

Not any more than I am afraid to test the Earth's roundness.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I wouldn't mind it being done. I just think it's unlikely to show anything anomalous and as such shouldn't be something that scientists should be put in the hot seat to get done. They have more important things to do.

Unlikely is not conclusive.

You are afraid to test conservation laws.
Nope, I know they work.
It's been proven.
Were you aware of that?

Conservation laws are rules introduced to simplify nature and should be subjected to experimental tests like all other scientific theories.

[Bored chemist]

Conservation laws are rules introduced to simplify nature and should be subjected to experimental tests like all other scientific theories.

No, conservation laws are a consequence of observed symmetries in the universe.
Thy are mathematically proven and do not need to be tested.
But thanks for proving that you don't understand the issue.

Unlikely is not conclusive.

Mathematical proof is conclusive.

[Kryptid]

Mathematical proof is conclusive.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second (in part because I don't understand why Noether's theorem implies conservation laws), let's say we have a hypothetical science establishment that believes that atoms are fundamental, indivisible particles whose number is always conserved (conservation of atomicity). They are not aware of nuclear reactions or anything that demonstrates atoms are not fundamental. If that same science group was aware of Noether's theorem, would they conclude that Noether's theorem proves that atomicity is always conserved? If not, why not?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Mathematical proof is conclusive.

What if mathematics disagrees with results of experiments ?

[Bored chemist]

Mathematical proof is conclusive.

Just to play devil's advocate for a second (in part because I don't understand why Noether's theorem implies conservation laws), let's say we have a hypothetical science establishment that believes that atoms are fundamental, indivisible particles whose number is always conserved (conservation of atomicity). They are not aware of nuclear reactions or anything that demonstrates atoms are not fundamental. If that same science group was aware of Noether's theorem, would they conclude that Noether's theorem proves that atomicity is always conserved? If not, why not?

You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)

[Kryptid]

You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)

Alright, I'll look into that. It's an interesting concept and I feel it's an important thing for me to try to understand.

[Bored chemist]

You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.
(Spoiler alert- it isn't)

Alright, I'll look into that. It's an interesting concept and I feel it's an important thing for me to try to understand.

I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.

If your mathematics disagrees with nature you need to change your mathematics. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.

If your mathematics disagrees with nature you need to change your mathematics. #ResultsRequired

That's a mighty big "if".
Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.
Your suggestions don't agree.
#RethinkRequired

[Yaniv (OP)]

Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.

#ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.

#ResultsRequired

Every single observation ever made has agreed with the conservation laws.
Is that really not enough data for you?
What would it take?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Every single observation ever made has agreed with the conservation laws.
Is that really not enough data for you?
What would it take?

An experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum.