[Yaniv (OP)]

So this predicts the following order of masses (from least to greatest): positron, electron, proton, neutrino, neutron with four particles, neutron with six particles. Does that sound good?

No. These numbers predict curvature of charged particles in electric/magnetic fields akin to mass/charge ratio in a mass spectrometer. The smallest number curves most and appear least massive and the largest number curves least and appears most massive.

[Kryptid]

No. These numbers predict curvature of charged particles in electric/magnetic fields akin to mass/charge ratio in a mass spectrometer. The smallest number curves most and appear least massive and the largest number curves least and appears most massive.

I'm not looking for mass-to-charge ratio, I'm just looking for mass. What determines mass alone?

[alancalverd]

So this predicts the following order of masses (from least to greatest): positron, electron, proton, neutrino, neutron with four particles, neutron with six particles. Does that sound good?

Sadly

The mass of the neutrino is much smaller than that of the other known elementary particles.

But don't let the facts spoil a good argument.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I'm not looking for mass-to-charge ratio, I'm just looking for mass. What determines mass alone?

I think you are looking for something that does not exist.

[Kryptid]

I think you are looking for something that does not exist.

If that's true, then weight doesn't change at different temperatures because weight doesn't exist.

[jeffreyH]

Do yourself a favour. Go away and read some textbooks. Stop just stabbing wildly in the dark. You aren't painting yourself in glory. Then once you know what you are talking about maybe you can have a positive conversation instead of a pointless argument. It is much more rewarding and I encourage you to try. You will surprise yourself.

[Kryptid]

Let me post an analogy:

Someone approaches a group of three lab researchers with a water canteen. Handing the canteen over to them, he requests that they perform some experiments to determine whether or not there is any water in the canteen.

Researcher 1 says, "My experiment will involve dropping a piece of sodium metal into the canteen. Since sodium reacts with water to give off heat and hydrogen gas, a thermal probe and hydrogen gas sensor placed in the canteen's opening can determine if there is water present." Researcher 1 performs the experiment, even jostling around the bit of sodium so that it can reach every part of the interior of canteen. No excess heat or hydrogen gas is detected. Researcher 1 concludes that there must not be any water in the canteen. An outside observer, however, protests the results of the experiment, saying, "We should look in the canteen. If water is confirmed visually, then it will render your results invalid and we will have to find a different way to interpret them."

Researcher 2 says, "My experiment will involve testing the electrical resistance of any substance inside the can. If the can is empty, we will measure a resistance consistent with air but not with water." The experiment is carried out by inserting probes from a multimeter into the canteen. The probes are maneuvered around inside of the canteen, measuring the resistance inside the canteen all the way to the bottom. The measured resistance is always consistent with that of air but never water. Researcher 2 concludes that there is no water in the can. The same outside observer from before comes back, "Your results are not definitive because you did not look inside the canteen. If you look inside the canteen and see that water is present, you will have to find a different way to interpret your results."

Researcher 3 says, "My experiment will involve lowering this piece of foam on a string into the canteen. It is covered in a hydrochromic ink that changes color from clear to blue when it becomes wet. If water is in the can, then the foam will turn blue." The experiment is performed. Even when the foam is lowered all the way to the bottom and then brought back up, it does not become blue. Researcher 3 concludes that there is no water in the canteen. For the final time, the outside observer insists, "Without looking inside the canteen, your results are meaningless. They will all become false if you see water in the canteen with your own eyes. Results required."

Even if looking inside the canteen is a legitimate way to test for the presence of water, the researchers all know that it isn't necessary at this point. They already know it's empty.

[alancalverd]

Just for fun, let's go back to the original proposal for an experiment: heating a piece of metal in vacuo.

In practice, any metal object will have a surface layer of oxide, moisture, grease, fingerprints and squashed flies, and various inclusions of related substances or other metals, so it will lose mass when heated.  The theory can therefore only be tested if it produces some numbers that are significantly larger than these experimental errors.

[Yaniv (OP)]

In practice, any metal object will have a surface layer of oxide, moisture, grease, fingerprints and squashed flies, and various inclusions of related substances or other metals, so it will lose mass when heated. 

My theory predicts weight of a cooled metal should increase at decreasing temperature in vacuum. Heating and cooling the metal a few times in vacuum should eliminate effects of evaporates and other impurities.

The theory can therefore only be tested if it produces some numbers that are significantly larger than these experimental errors.

That's correct.

Even if looking inside the canteen is a legitimate way to test for the presence of water, the researchers all know that it isn't necessary at this point. They already know it's empty.

Results required.

[Colin2B]

Even if looking inside the canteen is a legitimate way to test for the presence of water, the researchers all know that it isn't necessary at this point. They already know it's empty.

Results required.

The result is that you are looking even more foolish and proving you don’t understand even basic science and experimental methods.
If we presented an xray of a broken leg you would insist the leg be cut open in order for a diagnosis to be made.
Not sure even HSE will take you. Although i have a suspicion you are really a group of secondary school pupils who have rushed a lightweight paper together and are now having a laugh. No one else would keep parroting ‘results required’.

[Bored chemist]

Yes. I thought about it more and concluded the positive charge of a positron has to be higher than the negative charge of an electron.

But, in fact, it is not.

The natural motion of a neutron passing through an electric field is almost straight.

You regularly say "evidence required" to others (and the evidence is usually there)
Well, in this case, I'm saying it.
What evidence ids there for this laughable claim of yours?

[Kryptid]

Results required.

Let's see if these make any more sense to you:

- "My theory predicts that the Sun is cold. To test this, we should send a spaceship to the Sun and measure its temperature directly with a thermometer. If the thermometer says that it's cold, then we will have to find a different explanation for all the data that says it is hot."

- "My theory predicts that water molecules contain uranium atoms. To test this, we should build a very powerful microscope to look at water molecules. If the microscope sees a uranium atom in the water molecule, this will falsify all of the data that says that water is H₂O and a different theory will be needed to explain that data."

- "My theory predicts that the Earth is flat. To test this, we should drill a hole all the way through the Earth. If we drop a camera through this hole and it keeps falling even after it comes out the other side, then that will prove the Earth is flat and a new interpretation for the evidence that says it's round will be needed."

You argument is every bit as inane as the three posted above. The only difference is in the specific ingredients you've used in your recipe.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Let's see if these make any more sense to you:

- "My theory predicts that the Sun is cold. To test this, we should send a spaceship to the Sun and measure its temperature directly with a thermometer. If the thermometer says that it's cold, then we will have to find a different explanation for all the data that says it is hot."

- "My theory predicts that water molecules contain uranium atoms. To test this, we should build a very powerful microscope to look at water molecules. If the microscope sees a uranium atom in the water molecule, this will falsify all of the data that says that water is H2O and a different theory will be needed to explain that data."

- "My theory predicts that the Earth is flat. To test this, we should drill a hole all the way through the Earth. If we drop a camera through this hole and it keeps falling even after it comes out the other side, then that will prove the Earth is flat and a new interpretation for the evidence that says it's round will be needed."

You argument is every bit as inane as the three posted above. The only difference is in the specific ingredients you've used in your recipe.

Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?

[Colin2B]

Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?

Not unless that is what you plan to do. Your ideas have been published here for anyone to read and will not be removed.
As originator of this hypothesis it is your responsibility to carry out the experiment, or to convince a physics department that your ideas are worth testing, and return with the results.
#ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?

It's your hypothesis.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was responsibility for the experiment to test your insane hypothesis rests with anyone but you?

[Yaniv (OP)]

It's your hypothesis.
How did you come to the conclusion that it was responsibility for the experiment to test your insane hypothesis rests with anyone but you?

This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.

[Kryptid]

Is this thread planned to be buried without the results of experiments ?

We have more than enough "results of experiments" to know that mass doesn't decrease at increasing temperatures. Expecting mass to decrease at increasing temperatures is exactly like expecting a thermometer stuck in the Sun to register it as freezing cold, just as my previous analogy said.

This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.

Let's go stick a thermometer in the Sun while we're at it to test whether it is hot or not.

[Colin2B]

This experiment is also designed to test conservation of mass.

As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.
You need to talk to CERN they regularly test conservation of mass, energy and momentum and will show you the conditions under which these are conserved. You might also show them your model of particles and im sure that if they find it more accurate than the existing one they will adopt it.

[Yaniv (OP)]

As @Kryptid and @Bored chemist have repeatedly pointed out this has already been well tested.

I gather you are talking about different experiments. Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.

You need to talk to CERN they regularly test conservation of mass, energy and momentum and will show you the conditions under which these are conserved.

I contacted CERN many times over the years and didn't get the results of the experiment.

You might also show them your model of particles and im sure that if they find it more accurate than the existing one they will adopt it.

I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.

[Colin2B]

Precision weight measurements of a heated metal in vacuum is missing from the literature.

I will be happy to show them my model of particles and gravity after the results of the experiment.

You’d better get busy then.
#ResultsRequired