[Bored chemist]

Really?

Yes.

List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?

Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
What would be the point?
Mere evidence doesn't change your viewpoint.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?

I gather your evidence are the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots you provided in reply #17 (below).

How about this?
The flat bit of the graph on page 4
http://www.perkinelmer.co.uk/CMSResources/Images/44-74556GDE_TGABeginnersGuide.pdf

Or, of course, all the other flat bits of all the other graphs.

In reply #13 you provided this link (below).

OK, here it is again
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis

The link you provided says thermogravimetric plots are often smoothed.
Click on smoothed and you get to this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing

Are you sure your flat bits evidence are not smoothed ?

[Bored chemist]

Let us know when something changes.

[Yaniv (OP)]

The link you provided says thermogravimetric plots are often smoothed.
Click on smoothed and you get to this page.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoothing

Are you sure your flat bits evidence are not smoothed ?

You didn't answer my question.

[Bored chemist]

The manufacturers/ developers  of the equipment will look at the unprocessed data- and they will be looking for trends of exactly the sort you are suggesting.
If they find it they get a Nobel prize, and international recognition (as well as being able to make their kit a bit better.

They haven't found it.
Nor have the people looking at trajectories of satellites (which heat and cool as they pas through the Earth's shadow).
Nor has anyone else.

As I said, the important thing here is for you to stop wasting bandwidth and to come  back to us when something changes.

[Yaniv (OP)]

The manufacturers/ developers  of the equipment will look at the unprocessed data- and they will be looking for trends of exactly the sort you are suggesting.
If they find it they get a Nobel prize, and international recognition (as well as being able to make their kit a bit better.

They haven't found it.

Reference please.

Nor have the people looking at trajectories of satellites (which heat and cool as they pas through the Earth's shadow).

My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.

@Bored chemist doesn't know if his flat bits evidence are smoothed and ignores my references measuring weight reduction at increasing temperature (Glaser reply #19, Chinese team reply #370, Dmitriev reply #375).

[Bored chemist]

Do you have any idea how silly it is to ask for a reference to the fact that someone hasn't won a Nobel prize?

My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.

You don't have a "theory" you have a wild guess.
We have been here before.

ignores my references measuring weight reduction at increasing temperature (Glaser reply #19, Chinese team reply #370, Dmitriev reply #375).

That's clearly not true. I provided 3 separate replies to post 375, one to post 370.
The other reference you give is paywalled- so I can't read it, so I can't comment on it.
However the author can, and he has.

He is reported as saying this
 "Abstract
The change of the apparent mass of 20-g masses and tubes that are not in thermal equilibrium with ambient air has been observed. Buoyancy, adsorption and convection influences are discussed. Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf

I underlined the bit you seem to have missed which says the apparent effect is actually due to convection.

I pointed that out in reply number 40.

So it's clear that you lied  when you said I ignored your references,  You just ignored the responses, possibly because they would shatter your delusion.

Let us know when something changes.

[Yaniv (OP)]

He is reported as saying this
 "Abstract
The change of the apparent mass of 20-g masses and tubes that are not in thermal equilibrium with ambient air has been observed. Buoyancy, adsorption and convection influences are discussed. Quantitative comparisons show that, under such conditions, it is predominantly free convection forces which change the apparent mass."
 here
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0026-1394/27/2/008/pdf

I underlined the bit you seem to have missed which says the apparent effect is actually due to convection.

I pointed that out in reply number 40.

So it's clear that you lied  when you said I ignored your references,  You just ignored the responses, possibly because they would shatter your delusion.

@Bored chemist you still don't get it. Glaser claims convection is responsible for weight reduction. Dmitriev and the Chinese team reduced convection by heating metals inside thermal insulation and still observed weight reduction which implies factors other than Glaser convection are responsible for weight reduction. Repeating the experiment in vacuum should eliminate convection all together. Do you get it now ?

[Bored chemist]

Chinese team reduced convection

You don't get it, do you?
Reduced does not mean eliminated.
They could have eliminated it- by using a vacuum chamber- but they didn't.
What does that tell you about the quality of their work?


Get back to us when something changes (and try not to tell lies next time- it makes you look silly).

[Yaniv (OP)]

Reduced does not mean eliminated.

But raises the possibility factors other than convection are responsible for weight reduction.

They could have eliminated it- by using a vacuum chamber- but they didn't.

I don't know why the Chinese team and Dmitriev did not do the experiment in vacuum.

What does that tell you about the quality of their work?

I don't know about their quality of work but I do know the experiment should be repeated in vacuum. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

#ResultsRequired

Get back to us when something changes

[Yaniv (OP)]

1. Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?

2. Do you think the results of Glaser, Dmitriev and the Chinese team showing W decreases at increasing T should not be investigated further ?

3. Do you think predicting the results of an experiment is a substitute for doing an experiment ?

[Bored chemist]

Do you think predicting the results of an experiment is a substitute for doing an experiment ?

Do you have to drop an apple every morning to check that gravity is still working?

Do you think the results of Glaser, Dmitriev and the Chinese team showing W decreases at increasing T should not be investigated further ?

Glaser showed that the effect was down to convection.
Most people would have guessed that. No point to any further investigation.
As for the other two, I think the reason why they didn't do it properly, and yet published their results should be published.

Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?

Not on their own.
However, as I said, there are other things that would "go wrong" if you were right, and we would have noticed.
Also as I said, the manufacturers and developers of TGA equipment  would have noticed the anomaly.

[Bored chemist]

My theory predicts hot and cold objects should fall at the same rate. We have been here before.

We have indeed been here before, about reply number 300.
Back then we showed that your idea that you can change mass, but not change gravitational forces doesn't work.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Do you have to drop an apple every morning to check that gravity is still working?

You need to drop the apple at least once.

Glaser showed that the effect was down to convection.
Most people would have guessed that. No point to any further investigation.

Curiousless chemist.
 

However, as I said, there are other things that would "go wrong" if you were right, and we would have noticed.

Like what ?

Also as I said, the manufacturers and developers of TGA equipment  would have noticed the anomaly.

I think they know about this anomaly and smoothed it out because they can't think outside the box and is the reason why the results of the experiment are absent from the literature.

Back then we showed that your idea that you can change mass, but not change gravitational forces doesn't work.

Only in your theory.

[Bored chemist]

Only in your theory.

We have "only" a theory; look up what that mans
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.

[Yaniv (OP)]

You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.

Like what ?

[Bored chemist]

You have a wild guess that's not consistent with observation.

Like what ?

Really?

Yes.

List a few experiments that disagree with weight reduction at increasing temperature ?

Why bother?
You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?
What would be the point?
Mere evidence doesn't change your viewpoint.

[Yaniv (OP)]

You always ignore the evidence that every single thermogravimetric experiment ever undertaken- that must be hundreds every day- shows that you are wrong.
Why should I bother to put forward any others?

Do you think the flat bits on thermogravimetric plots which we don't know if and how are smoothed are sufficient evidence to conclude W does Not change at increasing T in vacuum ?
Not on their own.

[Kryptid]

(1) Your proposal that mass decreases as thermal energy content increases is incompatible with E=mc². Therefore, your model and E=mc² cannot both be correct at the same time. Verification of one would automatically be falsification of the other.
(2) E=mc² has been experimentally verified by numerous observations and experiments over many decades (nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, matter-antimatter annihilation, etc.)
(3) Therefore, your model has been falsified without any need to do your proposed experiment.