0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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
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.
There are no signs of photons having even the tiniest bit of charge.
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).
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.
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.
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.
As matter is heated its positive charge decreases and will melt and evaporate before its charge becomes negative.
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.
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/
At what temperature does matter become negatively-charged, then?
There is nothing touching the light bulb and so there is no way to replenish the heat particles by absorbing them from other matter.
In my theory negative light particles from stars bend by the positive charge of the sun.
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.
A very hot plasma could be negatively charged ? A link between weight and temperature if exists requires completely different understanding of 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).
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.
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.
Maybe the prediction of the strength of the magnetic force is false ? Isn't the magnetic force based on Newtons (force) ?
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.
Scientists know how to measure the strength of a magnetic field from its effects on other objects.
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.
What does your model predict that the strength of electric charge should be on each particle?
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 ?
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.
My theory provides qualitative predictions - not quantitative predictions.
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.
Dark matter and galactic recession do not invalidate Einstein's equations.
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.
A link between weight and temperature as you propose it violates our observations.
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.
Which are falsified by the fact that no observations support the idea of light having a negative charge.
"At the heart of science...most ruthless skeptical scrutiny of all ideas old and new" Carl Sagan, reply 47.
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.
WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORK
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/11/2017 09:59:57WE ALREADY KNOW THAT YOUR IDEAS DO NOT WORKBut we don't have the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/11/2017 09:59:57Based 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.