[Yaniv (OP)]

You said:
'Maybe he can't bare the thought of sharing the Nobel Prize with me and my name remembered for a long, long time for theorizing this prediction ?'
Which is batshit insane. Even for a conspiracy theorist.

Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired

And, as I keep saying.
Yes, you are required to provide results or shut up.

[The Spoon]

You said:
'Maybe he can't bare the thought of sharing the Nobel Prize with me and my name remembered for a long, long time for theorizing this prediction ?'
Which is batshit insane. Even for a conspiracy theorist.

Lets keep our eyes on the ball. #ResultsRequired

As has been stated, the onus is on you to produce evidence. Which you have not. What is with the hashtag? Do you think it makes you sound more credible?

[Yaniv (OP)]

As has been stated, the onus is on you to produce evidence. Which you have not. What is with the hashtag? Do you think it makes you sound more credible?

We have already been through this before. I don't have the skills to do the experiment myself think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists. The University of Leeds was not interested to do the experiment and I couldn't find scientists elsewhere to do the experiment. The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget the point of this thread. #ResultsRequired

[Kryptid]

We have already been through this before. I don't have the skills to do the experiment myself think this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists. The University of Leeds was not interested to do the experiment and I couldn't find scientists elsewhere to do the experiment. The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget the point of this thread. #ResultsRequired

If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?

[Yaniv (OP)]

If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?

If someone published the results in the scientific literature or on the internet so others can read and scrutinize the report I would lean towards believing the results.

[Bored chemist]

The hashtag is to make sure you don't forget

I haven't seen it used as a mnemonic device before, but if it works for you I will try using it.
You see, we don't really need to ask this question

If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?

If someone published the results in the scientific literature or on the internet so others can read and scrutinize the report I would lean towards believing the results.

#NoYouDidn'tBecauseYouPretendedItWasACalibrationError.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If someone agreed to perform the experiment and then reported not finding what your theory predicts, would you believe them or think that they were covering up the results?

If someone published the results in the scientific literature or on the internet so others can read and scrutinize the report I would lean towards believing the results.

And a second and third independent repeats of the experiment with similar results should definitely make me believe the results. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

And a second and third independent repeats of the experiment with similar results should definitely make me believe the results. #ResultsRequired

It seems you forgot; even with the hashtag
#NoYouDidn'tBecauseYouPretendedItWasACalibrationError.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Yes.
They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.

Come back when you have better data.

I thought we agreed the flat lines on thermogravimetric graphs are corrections and not conclusive.

[Bored chemist]

Yes.
They are not great, but they are the only data you have, and they don't support your assertion.

Come back when you have better data.

I thought we agreed the flat lines on thermogravimetric graphs are corrections and not conclusive.

You didn't have better data.
Why did you come back?

You made the assertion, but failed to provide evidence. Then you decided that it was the world's job to prove you were right rather than accepting that your hypothesis needs your support first.

If you had something that looked like a valid theoretical basis then people might take you seriously.
Instead you seek to say that you "think physicists repress the results of the experiment to protect funds, jobs, careers and reputations of many scientists." and " he can't bare the thought of sharing the Nobel Prize with me and my name remembered for a long, long time for theorizing this prediction"


Well, the problem here is that you are not doing anything that looks like science.
Come back when that changes.

[Yaniv (OP)]

You didn't have better data.
Why did you come back?

You made the assertion, but failed to provide evidence. Then you decided that it was the world's job to prove you were right rather than accepting that your hypothesis needs your support first.

I came back to this public forum to demand from scientists, obviously not you Boring Chemist, to do an experiment to test conservation of mass.

[Kryptid]

So if you heat up matter, introduce negative heat particles, lower the positive charge of an object, you lower the difference between forces acting on the object and its weight.

(1)It seems here that you are saying that something which can add heat to an object must also be negatively-charged. A laser beam can definitely heat matter up, easily over a million Kelvins if it's strong enough. By extension, your hypothesis proposes that light contains "negative heat particles" and thus must have a negative charge. All existing experiments to detect electric charge in photons has turned up null. Within the limits of experiment, a photon cannot have an electric charge greater in magnitude than 10^-35 times that of an electron. That's one hundred thousand million million million million million times less than an electron, at most. That's a falsification of your hypothesis.

(2) An object dropped from a height will accelerate towards the Earth. When it hits the ground, the kinetic energy it gained will turn into heat. If heat has a negative charge, then that matter generated negative charge out of nowhere (which would violate conservation of electric charge). That's a second falsification of your hypothesis.

(3) Nuclear explosions release enormous amounts of heat from potential energy stored inside of nuclei. Your hypothesis therefore says that positively-charged matter is somehow capable of releasing negatively-charged heat. That's another violation of conservation of charge. That's a third falsification of your hypothesis.

[Yaniv (OP)]

All existing experiments to detect electric charge in photons has turned up null. Within the limits of experiment, a photon cannot have an electric charge greater in magnitude than 10-35 times that of an electron.

In my theory light consists of negative particles travelling much faster than electrons hence appear not to be deflected in electric and magnetic field in laboratory experiments.

An object dropped from a height will accelerate towards the Earth. When it hits the ground, the kinetic energy it gained will turn into heat. If heat has a negative charge, then that matter generated negative charge out of nowhere

In my theory matter is made up of positive and negative particles and when two objects collide some negative particles are released as heat.

Nuclear explosions release enormous amounts of heat from potential energy stored inside of nuclei. Your hypothesis therefore says that positively-charged matter is somehow capable of releasing negatively-charged heat.

In my theory atomic nuclei are also made up of positive and negative particles.

This thread was originally posted in Physics forum to do an experiment to test Conservation of Mass. You moved thread to New Theories forum and seem to suggest the experiment should not be carried out because you don't like my theory. Even if my theory is wrong this experiment should be completed to test Conservation of Mass. Get this thread back to Physics forum to find scientists to conclude the experiment. 

[Bored chemist]

You didn't have better data.
Why did you come back?

You made the assertion, but failed to provide evidence. Then you decided that it was the world's job to prove you were right rather than accepting that your hypothesis needs your support first.

I came back to this public forum to demand from scientists, obviously not you Boring Chemist, to do an experiment to test conservation of mass.

The reason why your "demand" is laughable has already been explained.

Did you come back to get laughed at?
Incidentally, are you aware that conservation of mass is verified as a high school experiment?

Perhaps your problem is pitching to a university when the local school science group would be a better forum for your experiment.

[Bored chemist]

Get this thread back to Physics forum to find scientists to conclude the experiment. 

Just as soon as you start doing physics the mods might consider that option.

You have to accept that your "theory" is new (actually it's  not a theory) so why don't you think it should be in the "New Theories" section?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Incidentally, are you aware that conservation of mass is verified as a high school experiment?
Perhaps your problem is pitching to a university when the local school science group would be a better forum for your experiment.

This experiment in not being carried out at high precision necessary to detect small changes in weight and should be repeated at highest precision measurable. My theory also predicts weight differences between reactants and products in chemical reactions. In exothermic reactions products should be heavier than reactants and in endothermic reactions products should weigh less than reactants. But my original prediction is more fundamental cold matter should weigh more than hot matter.

[Yaniv (OP)]

You have to accept that your "theory" is new (actually it's  not a theory) so why don't you think it should be in the "New Theories" section?

Because this thread is about an experiment to test Conservation of Mass.

[Bored chemist]

You have to accept that your "theory" is new (actually it's  not a theory) so why don't you think it should be in the "New Theories" section?

Because this thread is about an experiment to test Conservation of Mass.

There are two ways of looking at that.
Either the experiment has been done, and your  prediction is wrong - in which case there's nothing to say, or the experiment has not been done, in which case this thread can't be about that (non existent)  experiment.

The experiment's never going to be done until you come up with a reason to suppose that established physics is wrong.
Your "explanation" of why a change should occur makes no sense, so you shouldn't be surprised that nobody is leaping to test it experimentally.

Until you come up with a plausible reason why the mas might change, or an experiment that shows that the mass changes, nobody is going to waste significant resources on you.

[Yaniv (OP)]

There are two ways of looking at that.
Either the experiment has been done, and your  prediction is wrong - in which case there's nothing to say, or the experiment has not been done, in which case this thread can't be about that (non existent)  experiment.

My first experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum has not been done (at least does not appear in the literature). The chemical reaction experiment has been done but not at sufficient precision to find changes in weight and should be repeated at highest precision measurable.