0 Members and 15 Guests are viewing this topic.
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.
But a link between weight and temperature does.
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.
Maybe. So do you propose to forget the experiment to test your theory ?
But it would need a really long antenna, would't it ?
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 ?
You haven't demonstrated a link between weight and temperature, so you haven't disproved anything. All you have done is speculate.
Given that F=ma has been well-substantiated by experiment, I'd say no.
There is no evidence in support of such a link.
New discoveries don't change the results of past experiments and observations.
Not necessarily. Here's a demonstration of wireless power transfer using a resonant inductive coupling:
There are no observations of a link between weight and temperature. There is only your speculation.
Here's another way we know that light has no charge: we know that magnetic fields do not have any negative charge. If they did, then positively-charged particles would be attracted to magnetic fields while negatively-charged particles would be repelled by them. In reality, a stationary electric charge is not affected by a magnetic field. A moving electric charge is deflected by a magnetic field such that it will travel in circles around the magnetic field lines (circling in different directions for different charges). That is, however, not attraction or repulsion. It is also known that a changing magnetic field results in the emission of electromagnetic radiation. Light, of course, is just one set of wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation. Since magnetic fields are not negatively-charged, the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the field also cannot be negatively-charged. If it was, that would mean that negative charged popped up out of nowhere and thus conservation of electric charge has been violated.
Again, I don't have a theory. This is existing scientific knowledge I'm talking about.
Experiments already exist to test modern theories.
Again I have no theory. Modern scientific theories like relativity have been validated by a myriad of tests already, like the orbital decay rate of the Hulse-Taylor binary neutron star system, time dilation experiments (both gravitational and velocity), gravitational wave detection by LIGO, the perihelion precession of Mercury, gravitational lensing of starlight around the Sun, and the observation of the geodetic effect and frame dragging by Gravity Probe B.
Your model proposes that atoms have a net positive charge, but consider hydrogen atoms. The protium isotope of hydrogen atoms is composed of solely of one proton and one electron, so the net charge on such an atom would be the difference between the values of charge on those two particles. Past experiments have observed that, if there is a difference in charge between the proton and electron, it must be smaller in magnitude than 3.6 x 10-19 times the charge on an electron. So if hydrogen atoms have a net positive charge, it cannot be any greater than that value (making it less than 36 million million million times smaller than the charge on a single electron). It may as well not have any charge at all on such a minute scale.
[A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
[A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations. No it doesn’t. At best it would show a link between mass and temperature.@Kryptid has given you many experimental results, consistently tested, that show your theory is incorrect. You need to study enough to understand why before you go any further.The relationship between force, mass and acceleration are tested regularly in labs, spacecraft, etc, no one is going to publish the results because they are always as expected ie no surprise.
My theory predicts (and physics) hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate so g remains a constant.So a reduction in W is a reduction in m.#ResultsRequired
Then provide the results.I don’t intend to waste time on someone who can’t be bothered to look at the experimental evidence as provided by @Kryptid and understand why it disproves your theory.I’m out.
Quote from: Colin2B on 20/11/2017 18:24:21Then provide the results.I don’t intend to waste time on someone who can’t be bothered to look at the experimental evidence as provided by @Kryptid and understand why it disproves your theory.I’m out.I understand why you can't be bothered to look at the experimental evidence to disprove conservation of mass.
I didn't get support from the scientific community to conclude the experiment. Only obstructions.
But not substantiated by the ultimate experiment.
Glaser shows weight decreases at increasing temperature in air. In vacuum ?Dmitriev also found a link between weight and temperature. But you don't believe it.
New discoveries change explanations of past observations.
My theory predicts negative particles (light, heat exc) radiated by the bulb should be replaced by negative particles from the environment.
Glaser, Dmitriev and my theory.
In my theory negative light particles travel too fast to be deflected by magnetic fields in laboratory experiments.
Rephrase. Are you not interested to test existing scientific knowledge ?
My experiment is also designed to test modern theories.
Relativity should also be tested by the ultimate experiment.
You are using mathematical physics to explain diverse physical observations. A link between weight and temperature, if exists, disproves F=ma and the basis of your explanations.
There is no good reason to believe that the experiment should find anything and as such there's no reason to suspect anything of interest showing up in the experiment.
Your proposed experiment is not the "ultimate" experiment. The "ultimate" experiment would to test the equation directly to see if a given mass with a given acceleration exerts the expected amount of force. This is the kind of thing that is tested all the time in college physics classes. I remember in physics lab, we used to test the validity of equations all the time using experimental set-ups.
Do you have some references for that? Were their experiments independently confirmed by others?
New discoveries change explanations of past observations.But not the results.
Explain how a vacuum can give negative particles to a light bulb that is isolated from other matter and radiation.
Sure, I'm interested in experimental tests of theories. It's being done constantly. So far, relativity has come out on top.
It's unnecessary and founded upon faulty premises.
Here's another problem with your hypothesis: your proposed mechanism for what causes heat particles to move matter will not work. You say that atoms are positively charged and sit inside of positively-charged space which exerts a pressure on the atom from all sides. Then along comes a heat particle that makes one side of the atom slightly less positive than the other side. The first problem with that is that a heat particle cannot change the charge on just one side of an atom. Electrons are constantly moving around all sides of the atom, so any change in the charge of the electron will be distributed equally all around the atom as the electron moves. Even if you are proposing that only one side of the electron has a change in charge (which makes no sense, given that electrons don't have "sides"), then that still won't work because the electron would still be constantly moving around the atom, preventing any net polarization of the atom from occurring.
The second problem is that an atom with lopsided charge still will not be moved by a surrounding positively-charged space. Essentially, you are proposing that space is a scalar field (one which has magnitude but not direction) and therefore has the same value at all locations. It isn't like a vector field, where there is a potential gradient that an object can move through to release potential energy. An atom with lopsided charge will be in just as stable of a configuration at one location in this scalar space field as it would be in another location. It can't reach a lower state of energy by moving and as such it does not move at all.Another way of looking at it is by thinking about an electric dipole (say, a rod of glass that is positively-charged on one tip and negatively-charged on the other). You take this dipole and submerge it in a positively-charged fluid. Do you think that the tip repelling the fluid and the tip attracting the fluid will cause the dipole to move? Unfortunately, it won't. Although the dipole will experience a force pushing it in the direction of the negative pole (since the negative pole is attracted to the fluid and the positive pole is repelled from it), there is an equal and opposite force pulling the fluid itself towards the negative pole. The fluid will push against the dipole just as strongly as the dipole is pushed against the fluid. This results in no net movement.
It's like a car sitting on the ground. The pressure on the bottom of the tires is much higher than the pressure on the roof of the car. Does this mean that the car should suddenly be propelled upwards because the pressure on the bottom is greater than on the top? No, because it's being matched by another force that is pushing it down: gravity. In your model, an atom with lopsided charge will simply change the configuration of the scalar field around it such that it's slightly more dense at the less-positive side and slightly less dense at the more-positive side. That's it, though. That change in density won't cause it to move any more than the glass dipole would move in the charged fluid.
Not good reason to believe is not good enough for an aspiring scientist like me.
Conservation of mass is the most fundamental axiom in physics. More fundamental than F=ma. Which makes my experiment more fundamental.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdfhttp://bourabai.kz/aldmitriev/.I am not aware of other papers testing a link between weight and temperature.
New discoveries could change the explanation given to past results.
Negative light particles radiated from the bulb could be replaced by radio particles from the transmitter ?
But yet to pass my experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
In your opinion.
I don't understand this paragraph.I also don't understand relevance of this paragraph.
I can think of an experiment. Place the rod inside a circular anode. My theory predicts the rod will move and settle negative pole in contact with the anode.
In a world where funds, time and access to technology are unlimited, I'd be all for everyone testing every notion that they want to. However, if you expect scientists to use their (expensive) equipment and valuable time to test your hypothesis, then you'd better be able to convince them that the experiment is worth the effort.
Conservation of mass has already been thoroughly tested and has never once been found to be violated.
That first article is behind a paywall, so I cannot see the details. I'll have to read the other papers later when I have more time. However, if these experiments have not been replicated by others, then the results are questionable. I'll know more when I have done some reading there. If these experiments were conducted in an atmosphere, then it's possible that turbulent airflow from convection (due to the increased temperature of the body heating the air around it), could be a complicating factor for the measurements. Even if it did turn out to be correct, it could not possibly be based on your proposed mechanism, since your mechanism violates the laws of physics.
And, like I said before, they can't actually change what the results were.
Negative light particles radiated from the bulb could be replaced by radio particles from the transmitter ?The power is being sent in the form of a fluctuating magnetic field. If radio waves produced by that fluctuating field are negatively-charged, then that violates conservation of electric charge because magnetic fields are not charged.
There are literally an infinite number of potential experiments that have not been conducted, but that doesn't mean that we should say "Well, we've done dozens of intricate experiments to test relativity and it's passed them all, but there are still more experiments we could do so we might as well say that we don't know anything and put no confidence in relativity (or any other theory in the history of science).
No, it's objectively true that it's founded upon faulty premises: your hypothesis violates both conservation of charge and conservation of mass, which have been repeatedly backed up by experiment again and again.
My experiment is as much about testing conservation of mass as about testing a prediction of my theory and could save money wasted on faulty theories.
Could negative particles emitted from the transmitter replaced by negative particles from a battery or the ground ?
Conservation of mass has not passed my experiment. Could all of physics based on faulty premises ?
Conservation of mass has not been tested by my experiment.
Glaser claims air currents are responsible for reduction in weight but a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum is missing from his papers.
Results remain but explanation of results could change.
No other experiment is more fundamental and simple in concept than my experiment.
So he didn't do a control experiment? That's a no-no in science.
The light bulb is floating in space, so it's at least hundreds of miles above the ground. The transmitter isn't emitting negative particles. All it's "emitting" is a changing magnetic field (which cannot be negatively-charged). Even if the transmitter was somehow emitting heat particles, how is it going to replenish its supply of lost heat particles? The vast majority of the heat particles are being lost to space by the hot light bulb. The system has to run out of negative heat particles eventually.
Actually, dropping a weight in a vacuum and letting it hit a high-precision pressure plate would be a simpler experiment to test F=ma.
According to the papers you linked, the basis for the "higher temperature equals lower mass" idea is that velocity itself is connected with lower mass (i.e. since hot materials have faster moving particles, their mass is proposed to decrease). I have just realized that there already is experimental equipment that has tested to see how velocity is connected with mass: particle accelerators. Particle accelerators accelerate particles to near the speed of light and have them collide with either other particles or a target material.If mass decreased with increasing velocity, then these particles should weigh much less at relativistic velocities than they do at rest. This, in turn, would mean significantly less force than expected when they hit their targets and therefore a considerable anomaly in the aftermath of the collision. Given the extreme sensitivity of particle accelerator instruments, such a major deviation from predicted values would easily be picked up and send shockwaves through the physics community. The fact that accelerators have been running for many decades without a single report of anomalous particle weight loss solidly demonstrates that greater velocity does not correlate with reduced mass. There you go. An experimental falsification of this hypothesis.
Without a 'control' experiment showing weight does not change at increasing temperature in vacuum you can't tell if the air was responsible to the entire loss of weight.
The transmitter generates alternating electric currents and every time current is accelerated negative radio particles are emitted and could be replaced by negative particles from a chemical or a nuclear battery or by negative light particles from a solar cell ?
I think dropping a weight heated to different temperatures in vacuum onto a pressure plate is a good experiment.
In my theory hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate and a reduction in weight at increasing temperature is Not linked to velocity.
Does that mean that you think Dmitriev's experiment showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing temperature was valid but his experiments showing a supposed loss of mass with increasing velocity was not?
So we don't know the cause. That doesn't mean that temperature was what caused the weight decrease, it means that we literally don't know what caused it.
Photons, be they radio wave photons or otherwise, cannot be negatively-charged.
Electrons and positrons have equal and opposite charges and they can annihilate to create a pair of photons. Since the sum of charge on the electron and positron is zero, the resulting photons must also have zero charge.
My experiment doesn't require different temperatures, so it's simpler. It would be awfully convenient if F=ma at room temperature but not at 10 degrees above or below room temperature, don't you think? Why should the Universe think there is anything particularly special about room temperature as defined by humans?
You do realize that the very thing that makes one object hotter than another is the kinetic energy contained in (and accordingly the velocity of) its component particles, right?
I now realize Dmitriev peculiar method of heating is not like normal heating and is complicating my argument.
Thanks. In my theory temperature is not related to velocity.
That doesn't mean temperature is responsible for a reduction in weight but this should be tested and my theory predicts weight reduction at increasing temperature.
A simple direct current circuit showing three light bulbs in series (video below). The first bulb is the brightest and the third bulb is the dimmest. In my theory a fraction of electrons are lost as negative light particle in each bulb explaining reduced brightness.
How sequential dimming of bulbs is explained by physics ?
Not in my physics.
My theory predicts a cold object should register higher pressure than when heated. Heat only the object and keep room temperature normal.
I don't think so. Particles in solids have fixed positions and particles in liquids move around.
If temperature was a measure of velocity the temperature at the beginning of the melting process (solid) should be significantly lower than temperature at the end of the melting process (liquid).
A typical graph showing temperature remains constant during the melting process.
A piece of copper heated up by ultrasound is the same as a piece of copper heated up by conduction, radiation or any other method.
It's not necessary to test your hypothesis because it's already been falsified by existing data. I've shown via many different methods that photons cannot have any appreciable electric charge. Since your model requires light to be charged, your model has already been falsified.
Then your model is incompatible with reality because electrons can't turn into light particles. That would violate conservation laws. If it was possible to convert an electron into a photon, then that would automatically imply that the photon has just as strong of a negative charge as the electron it came from (due to conservation of charge). Since you can create a pair of photons from an electron-positron annihilation, that would mean that you somehow got twice as much negative charge out of the reaction as the electron supplied. That violates conservation of charge. It also violates conservation of lepton number since photons are not leptons.
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.
Wait a minute... why are you saying that a change in mass of a heated object would have anything to do with falsifying F=ma? If the mass is different, then that would merely imply that it will yield a different force on impact with a given acceleration. That wouldn't make F=ma wrong.
The molecules in the liquid at the melting point and the molecules in the solid at the melting point are moving/vibrating/rotating at the same speed, but the molecules in the liquid are free to move around because the intermolecular bonds between the molecules in the solid have been broken by the extra added energy.
I suspect Dmitriev method of heating is not the same as Glaser normal heating because Dmitriev recorded larger changes in weight (milligrams compared to micrograms).
But it is necessary to test your physics.
Weight reduction at increasing temperature certainly violates at least one conservation law.
Here is another video showing first bulb brighter and second dimmer.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=tZOoBr4ghrw
If you believe mass is conserved weight reduction at increasing temperature disproves F=ma.
I think if temperature was a measure of motion the added free movement of molecules in liquids should have been registered as higher temperature.
Such a large discrepancy alone strongly suggests experimental error and therefore unreliable results. A piece of copper at, say, 30 degrees C isn't going to "know" how it got to that temperature. It's going to be physically identical regardless of the method of heating.
You make it sound like it hasn't already been tested. It has. Many times. Particle accelerators do it all the time. Charge is always conserved.
He explained in the video why the second bulb was dimmer...
How? Even if a block of copper at 100 degrees C weighed less than a block at 0 degrees C, why would that automatically mean that you couldn't calculate the force of impact of that copper block using F=ma by dropping it on a pressure plate? All it would mean is that the hot copper block should produce less force on impact than the cold one because it weighs less.
Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy. That would be like saying that a gas in a 1 milliliter container can't be as hot as a gas in a 1 liter container because the gas molecules in the smaller container don't have as much freedom of movement as those in the large container.