[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

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

Scientists know how to measure the charge of photons despite the fact that they are moving at the speed of light. They can look at light emitted by distant objects in the Universe and determine whether they have been affected by magnetic fields or not (which a moving charged particle inevitably would be): http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/jul/06/new-limit-placed-on-photon-charge. There are no signs of photons having even the tiniest bit of charge.

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

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

That doesn't fix the problem. If you propose that an increase in temperature of matter comes from a decrease in its positive charge caused by the addition of negative heat particles, then you are still proposing that the charge of matter must change when it is heated up (i.e. its charge becomes increasingly negative as its temperature rises). Therefore, the source of negative charge cannot be matter itself. Otherwise, it would already be just as negatively-charged before the reaction as it is after the reaction. That, in turn, would demonstrate the temperature has no dependence on charge.

Come to think of it, matter would have to contain an infinite amount of negative heat particles. If you pick up a book and drop it, the atoms in the book would release heat particles. However, you can pick it up and drop it again and again. As long as energy can be expended to lift the book against gravity, there is no limit to the amount of heat particles matter would have to release. Since matter does not have an infinite negative charge, this can therefore be safely ruled out.

[Yaniv (OP)]

There are no signs of photons having even the tiniest bit of charge.

In my theory gravitational lensing is an electric interaction between negatively charged light particles and positively charged stars and galaxies. The color of stars is also described as an electric interaction between negative light particles and positive stars. Large stars slow down the speed of light more than small stars and appear bluer. Blue light in my theory travels slower than red light.

 

If you propose that an increase in temperature of matter comes from a decrease in its positive charge caused by the addition of negative heat particles, then you are still proposing that the charge of matter must change when it is heated up (i.e. its charge becomes increasingly negative as its temperature rises).

As matter is heated its positive charge decreases and will melt and evaporate before its charge becomes negative.

If you pick up a book and drop it, the atoms in the book would release heat particles. However, you can pick it up and drop it again and again. As long as energy can be expended to lift the book against gravity, there is no limit to the amount of heat particles matter would have to release. Since matter does not have an infinite negative charge, this can therefore be safely ruled out.

When you pick up a book and drop it on collision atoms vibrate and some negative particles bonding the atoms together are released as heat. When atoms have settled down heat from the environment could replace the negative particles lost on collision.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

"At the heart of science...most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas old and new" Carl Sagan, reply 47.

[Kryptid]

In my theory gravitational lensing is an electric interaction between negatively charged light particles and positively charged stars and galaxies. The color of stars is also described as an electric interaction between negative light particles and positive stars. Large stars slow down the speed of light more than small stars and appear bluer. Blue light in my theory travels slower than red light.

Gravitational lensing doesn't have anything to do with the way that the charge on the photon was measured. It was measured by the (lack) of interaction between photons and magnetic fields in space.

Light of different wavelengths travelling at different speeds is a prediction of some quantum gravity models as well. Too bad that has been all but falsified by existing observations: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/

As matter is heated its positive charge decreases and will melt and evaporate before its charge becomes negative.

At what temperature does matter become negatively-charged, then?
 

When you pick up a book and drop it on collision atoms vibrate and some negative particles bonding the atoms together are released as heat. When atoms have settled down heat from the environment could replace the negative particles lost on collision.

Then consider a light bulb floating in a vacuum that is powered by a fluctuating magnetic field. When the light bulb glows, it releases heat into the vacuum and it's gone for good. There is nothing touching the light bulb and so there is no way to replenish the heat particles by absorbing them from other matter. This means that the matter in the light bulb would have to be capable of generating an unlimited amount of heat particles on its own.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Gravitational lensing doesn't have anything to do with the way that the charge on the photon was measured. It was measured by the (lack) of interaction between photons and magnetic fields in space.

In my theory negative light particles from stars bend by the positive charge of the sun.

Light of different wavelengths travelling at different speeds is a prediction of some quantum gravity models as well. Too bad that has been all but falsified by existing observations: https://arstechnica.com/science/2009/10/quantum-gravity-theories-meet-a-gamma-ray-burst/

A link between weight and temperature, if exists, changes and disproves all aspects of physics (heat, mass, energy, forces, W=mg, E=mc2, exc) and so current physical models can't be used to falsify alternative explanations.

 

At what temperature does matter become negatively-charged, then?

A very hot plasma could be negatively charged ? A link between weight and temperature if exists requires completely different understanding of temperature.

There is nothing touching the light bulb and so there is no way to replenish the heat particles by absorbing them from other matter.

Maybe light and heat particles emitted by the light bulb could be replenished by absorption of different types of radiation travelling the vacuum (heat, light, radio, microwaves, exc). 

[Kryptid]

In my theory negative light particles from stars bend by the positive charge of the sun.

Again, that has nothing to do with the link I posted. What was searched for was deflection of light by interaction with galactic magnetic fields. No deflections were observed. That means no charge.

A link between weight and temperature, if exists, changes and disproves all aspects of physics (heat, mass, energy, forces, W=mg, E=mc2, exc) and so current physical models can't be used to falsify alternative explanations.

Measuring speed does not require any physical model. All it requires is knowing the distance traveled and the time it took to travel. It's simply math. 

A very hot plasma could be negatively charged ? A link between weight and temperature if exists requires completely different understanding of temperature.

At what temperature?

Maybe light and heat particles emitted by the light bulb could be replenished by absorption of different types of radiation travelling the vacuum (heat, light, radio, microwaves, exc). 

It would be very easy to set the experiment up such that the heat output of the lightbulb would greatly exceed any background radiation entering the bulb. So the matter in the bulb still needs to make an unlimited amount of negative heat particles.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Again, that has nothing to do with the link I posted. What was searched for was deflection of light by interaction with galactic magnetic fields. No deflections were observed. That means no charge.

Maybe the prediction of the strength of the magnetic force is false ? Isn't the magnetic force based on Newtons (force) ?

It would be very easy to set the experiment up such that the heat output of the lightbulb would greatly exceed any background radiation entering the bulb. So the matter in the bulb still needs to make an unlimited amount of negative heat particles.

I think this is a good experiment. My theory predicts number of negative particles lost should equal number of negative particles gained (by conduction, convection and all types of radiation - not only heat). And if a link between weight and temperature exists a new kind of physics to count and calculate how many negative particles were lost and gained.

[Kryptid]

Maybe the prediction of the strength of the magnetic force is false ? Isn't the magnetic force based on Newtons (force) ?

Scientists know how to measure the strength of a magnetic field from its effects on other objects. They've had plenty of opportunity to research that in the lab. The strength of galactic magnetic fields is calculated by measuring the synchrotron radiation emitted by those galaxies. Since the energy levels of the synchrotron radiation is directly related to how the charged particles that created it behaves in a magnetic field, the field strength can be calculated from observations. Even small galaxies are tens of thousands of light-years across, so any light travelling through that galaxy would be under the influence of the galactic magnetic field for tens of thousands of years. If the light had any significant amount of charge, it would be strongly deflected by the field over all those millenia. Since no such deflection is observed, we know that light has no practical degree of charge.

Before you say anything about the behavior of charged particles in magnetic fields having anything to do with a given model, please do keep in mind that we have data from experiments that tell us how they behave. We obviously have to know that information, otherwise we wouldn't be able to build particle accelerators where the relationship between magnetic field strength and charged particle behavior is critical for their functioning.

I think this is a good experiment. My theory predicts number of negative particles lost should equal number of negative particles gained (by conduction, convection and all types of radiation - not only heat).

That makes no sense, given that your model posits that a change in the number of heat particles is responsible for a change in temperature. If the total number of particles lost equals the number gained, then there should be no net change in temperature.

And if a link between weight and temperature exists a new kind of physics to count and calculate how many negative particles were lost and gained.

What does your model predict that the strength of electric charge should be on each particle?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Scientists know how to measure the strength of a magnetic field from its effects on other objects.

Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein. So is Einstein right ? Well, dark matter was introduced to account for stellar motions and dark energy was introduced to account for galactic recession. Maybe a similar story awaits the magnetic force and it behaves differently on large distances ? How can you be so sure you are right if you can't even tell if a link between weight and temperature exists ?

That makes no sense, given that your model posits that a change in the number of heat particles is responsible for a change in temperature. If the total number of particles lost equals the number gained, then there should be no net change in temperature.

Not if particles gained travel at different speeds to particles lost. A thermometer only responds to negative particles travelling at a certain range of speeds (heat) and will not respond to negative particles travelling at different speeds.

What does your model predict that the strength of electric charge should be on each particle?

My theory provides qualitative predictions - not quantitative predictions.

[Kryptid]

Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein.

Einstein's discoveries did not invalidate the measurements taken of acceleration due to Earth's gravity before he was born. Newton's equations still work very well at the conditions of Earth's relatively weak gravity. Likewise, the magnetic fields of galaxies are actually on the weak side (weaker than the Earth's own field). Scientists have experimented with field strengths much, much stronger than that, so they know how such fields should behave.

So is Einstein right ? Well, dark matter was introduced to account for stellar motions and dark energy was introduced to account for galactic recession.

Dark matter and galactic recession do not invalidate Einstein's equations.

Maybe a similar story awaits the magnetic force and it behaves differently on large distances ?

If such a thing was true, scientists would be able to tell. They would see anomalous magnetic behavior from galaxies that correlated with their size and distance from the Earth. There should be anomalous changes in the measured energies of synchrotron radiation far from a galaxy's center versus close to its center.

How can you be so sure you are right if you can't even tell if a link between weight and temperature exists ?

A link between weight and temperature as you propose it violates our observations.

Not if particles gained travel at different speeds to particles lost. A thermometer only responds to negative particles travelling at a certain range of speeds (heat) and will not respond to negative particles travelling at different speeds.

Which wouldn't work for the "light bulb floating in a vacuum" scenario, since the vacuum of space contains far less heat and radiant energy than the light bulb would give off.

My theory provides qualitative predictions - not quantitative predictions.

Which are falsified by the fact that no observations support the idea of light having a negative charge.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Einstein's discoveries did not invalidate the measurements taken of acceleration due to Earth's gravity before he was born. Newton's equations still work very well at the conditions of Earth's relatively weak gravity. Likewise, the magnetic fields of galaxies are actually on the weak side (weaker than the Earth's own field). Scientists have experimented with field strengths much, much stronger than that, so they know how such fields should behave.

A link between weight and temperature disproves F=ma and all mathematical physics based on this equation and requires re-evaluation of all forces and theories.

Dark matter and galactic recession do not invalidate Einstein's equations.

But a link between weight and temperature does.

If such a thing was true, scientists would be able to tell. They would see anomalous magnetic behavior from galaxies that correlated with their size and distance from the Earth. There should be anomalous changes in the measured energies of synchrotron radiation far from a galaxy's center versus close to its center.

I did not imply a correlation between magnetic field and galactic recession. The comparison with gravity was an analogy to how new discoveries change our perception of nature.

A link between weight and temperature as you propose it violates our observations.

Maybe. So do you propose to forget the experiment to test your theory ?

Which wouldn't work for the "light bulb floating in a vacuum" scenario, since the vacuum of space contains far less heat and radiant energy than the light bulb would give off.

But it would need a really long antenna, would't it ?

Which are falsified by the fact that no observations support the idea of light having a negative charge.

Could a link between weight and temperature be the first observation to support light/heat having a negative charge ?

You come up with all the reasons you can think of to avoid doing an experiment to test your theory. Even if my theory is wrong this experiment should be carried out to test if your physics is wrong. Why are you not interested to test your theory ? Are you afraid to discover you are wrong ?

[Bored chemist]

Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ? Newtons equations were correct to get to the moon and are used in space navigation. Does this mean his equations are right ? No. They were superseded by Einstein.

Bad choice of example.
Einstein pondered what would happen if the speed of light was constant for all observers and deduced that the outcomes would be novel physics.
It's important to realise that Einstein did that because the known  origin of the speed of light- Maxwell's equations- showed that C should be constant.

There was a sensible reasonable  theoretical basis (in those equations- which had already been tested and shown to work) for making the supposition on which Einstein based his deductions.

On the other hand, you are basing your ideas on nothing - you just dreamed them up.
Ther are already contradicted by known observations.
Lets me clear about  this
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK

Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.
And yet you complain that nobody will waste the time and effort to show what we already know. The predictions, based on stuff that's wrong, will be wrong.

Do you really not see the irony in this

"At the heart of science...most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas old and new" Carl Sagan, reply 47.

You have absolutely refused to accept that anyone should be sceptical about your idea.
You contend that, even though sound observational science shows that your postulate is wrong, the scientific world should waste money testing it.
And you seem not to understand that the scientific world, having seen that your idea is both theoretically nonsense and observedly false, refuses to play along.

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)]

Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.

My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and so should not affect satellites. If you had read my theory you would have known that.

[Yaniv (OP)]

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK

But we don't have the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK

But we don't have the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired

We have, as has been pointed out, the results of experiments and observations that show that your idea doesn't work.
Since the basis of your claim is false, we know it's not worth investigating the claim itself.

It's like saying "Because polar bears are black we can hide them in front of piles of coal."
We don't need to get the bears and coal and do the experiment to know that it won't work.

We know that hot things are not charged so we know that your ideas are wrong, so we don't need to do anything else to test your ideas.


Where is your equivalent of Maxwell's equations?
Since you think the # symbol helps you remember things
#WeHaveAlreadyPointedOutTheFactThatYourIdeasDon'tWork

#ItIsYourJobToProvideResultsOrAReasonableExplanationOfWhyYouThinkItWouldWork
i#ItIsNotTheJobOfScienceToInvestigateEveryClaimThatSomeGuyMakesOnTheInternet

[Bored chemist]

Based on thosE wrong ideas you have come up with the idea that things weight should change with temperature.
And WE KNOW THAT IT WRONG BECAUSE WE WOULD HAVE SEEN THE EFFECT ON SATELLITES.

My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and so should not affect satellites. If you had read my theory you would have known that.

You do not have a theory.
At best, you have a hypothesis.
Stop mislabelling it; it makes you look dishonest.

[Yaniv (OP)]

#conspiracyofscience

[Bored chemist]

#conspiracyofscience

Already dismissed as an idea.
I guess you can call it a conspiracy; Science doesn't let in any old idea. They conspire (if you want to call it that) to only let ideas in that are backed up by sound reasoning or clear experimental data.

That's why your ideas isn't being taken seriously.

[The Spoon]

#conspiracyofscience

#deludedconspiracytheorist