0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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. I've seen other videos where all of the light bulbs in the series are equally bright, which supports the idea of the third bulb either being nearly burned out, having a damaged contact or some other problem:Example 1: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=1t0smFyRj4gExample 2: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=LETOaC4ao-EExample 3: //www.youtube.com/watch?v=WgfAsAUyEwsSo it looks like you've just shot your model in the foot. Since your model predicts that light bulbs normally become sequentially dimmer on a series circuit whereas in reality they normally don't, then you've falsified your own model.
All this is no excuse not to conclude my experiment to test conservation of mass.
You are talking about different experiments to weighing a heated metal in vacuum.
He says something about increasing resistance of the whole circuit. This should dim all light bulbs equally ?
If you accept conservation of mass disproved then F=ma can be used to describe several macroscopic phenomena and any extensions to this equation based on conservation of mass falsified.
In my theory the whole concept of mass is replaced with charge.
I don't really understand relevance of this paragraph.
A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.
Even if this prediction of my theory is wrong, weighing a heated metal in vacuum should be completed to test conservation of mass and open the way to new theories. #ResultsRequired
Like scientists thought they knew how to measure gravity ?
(1) It's already been tested over and over for many decades and never once been found to fail.
(2) There is no reason to believe that your proposed experiment will change that notion. Some uncontrolled, unreplicated results from a couple of other people whose results are inconsistent with each other is not a good reason to believe that conservation of mass fails. It's rather like the claims of people who say that they have built successful perpetual motion machines.
It's possible, for example, that the weight loss could be due to the existence of another force that opposes gravity instead of the actual mass of the metal becoming less. Although that would make the metal weigh less, it would not make the metal have less mass.
I'm saying that temperature does not automatically increase because molecules have extra room to move.
Temperature is not a measure of how much molecules are allowed to move, it's a measure of their average kinetic energy.
A small dimming of sequential bulbs may not be visible to the human eye. I would like this experiment repeated at highest precision measurable.Complete speculation.
There results of my experiment are not in the literature.
The fact only the results of these uncontrolled and unreplicated experiments appear in the literature makes me suspicious a link between weight and temperature could actually exist.
Absolutely true. The first stage is to test if such a link really exists and second to come with all possible explanations and eliminate them one by one through experiments.
But in liquids they are still very close together.
Molecules in liquids seem to me to have more average kinetic energy than molecules in solids.
To be more precise my theory predicts number of electrons leaving the cathode should be higher than number of electrons entering the anode. I have seen videos on Youtube showing current remains the same in all locations but not sure about the precision of the measurements. This is an important prediction that could falsify my theory. Therefore I would like to see experiments repeated at highest precision measurable to test if more electrons entering than leaving the circuit or if exactly equal number of electrons entering as leaving the circuit which would falsify my theory.
Of course not. They don't have to be. There are literally an infinite number of experiments that do not have results published in literature. It's like complaining that such-and-such an experiment hasn't yet been done to test the Earth's roundness. It isn't necessary.
If you can find someone who has the ability and willingness to do your experiment, be my guest. We have good reason to believe that such a thing doesn't happen though, like the particle accelerator thing I mentioned.
It ultimately doesn't matter. If the molecules of the same substance in liquid form have the same kinetic energy as those in the solid, then it's the same temperature. Their distances apart don't matter.
Your model has already been falsified because it violates at least three conservation laws. The circuit thing is just redundant.
You are afraid to test conservation laws.
My experiment should appear in the literature.
I understand why you are not interested to conclude the experiment.
Molecules in solids can vibrate and rotate but molecules in liquids also move around.
Only a physicist can claim molecules in liquids and solids are moving at the same speed.
You are afraid to test conservation laws. The circuit thing is an important experiment to me.
I wouldn't mind it being done. I just think it's unlikely to show anything anomalous and as such shouldn't be something that scientists should be put in the hot seat to get done. They have more important things to do.
You are afraid to test conservation laws.Nope, I know they work.It's been proven.Were you aware of that?
Conservation laws are rules introduced to simplify nature and should be subjected to experimental tests like all other scientific theories.
Unlikely is not conclusive.
Mathematical proof is conclusive.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/11/2017 18:52:55Mathematical proof is conclusive.Just to play devil's advocate for a second (in part because I don't understand why Noether's theorem implies conservation laws), let's say we have a hypothetical science establishment that believes that atoms are fundamental, indivisible particles whose number is always conserved (conservation of atomicity). They are not aware of nuclear reactions or anything that demonstrates atoms are not fundamental. If that same science group was aware of Noether's theorem, would they conclude that Noether's theorem proves that atomicity is always conserved? If not, why not?
You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.(Spoiler alert- it isn't)
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2017 00:04:46You would need to define the relevant symmetry and check on whether or not it is real.(Spoiler alert- it isn't)Alright, I'll look into that. It's an interesting concept and I feel it's an important thing for me to try to understand.
I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2017 11:21:30I freely admit that I don't really understand it but (Unlike Yaniv) I recognise that a mathematical proof is valid whether I understand it or not.If your mathematics disagrees with nature you need to change your mathematics. #ResultsRequired
Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/11/2017 13:02:26Fortunately, all the observations agree with the maths.#ResultsRequired
Every single observation ever made has agreed with the conservation laws.Is that really not enough data for you?What would it take?