0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

(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.

The results of the experiment would automatically falsify one of our theories.

E=mc2 has Not been verified by the proposed experiment.

Do you have the results ? #ResultsRequired

The fact that E=mc2 has been verified experimentally means that your model has been falsified. What you have proposed is an "either-or" scenario. Either one is right or the other is right. When one has been shown to be correct, the other has automatically been shown to be incorrect. We know that E=mc2 is correct. Therefore, your model is the one that has to be wrong. It's a simple fact of logical deduction.

Now I'll calculate how much E=mc2 predicts mass should increase with temperature. I'll consider a material will well-studied properties: silicon dioxide (silica). Solid silica has an average heat capacity of 1.165 J/g*K (averaged over the temperature range at which it is a solid). If we start at room temperature (273.15 Kelvins) and raise a block of solid silica up to its melting point (1,986 Kelvins), that is a temperature increase of 1,712.85 Kelvins. That represents an energy increase of 1,995.47 J/g in the silica block. In accordance with E=mc2, 1 gram of mass is equivalent to 89,875,517,873,681,786 joules of energy (or alternatively, that 1 joule of energy is 1.1126501 x 10-17 grams). So that means 1 gram of silica heated from room temperature up to its melting point will gain 2.2202598 x 10-14 grams of weight. For 1,000 metric tons of silica, that's a gain of 0.000022202598 grams. That's a very, very small amount.

What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?

What happens to E=mc2 if the results of the experiment disagree with your prediction ?Nothing, because it won't.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/03/2018 19:54:48You 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?Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/03/2018 10:07:59Do 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.

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.

You have Not provided experimental evidence to support this statement.

Sure I have. I've said that experiments with nuclear reactions, radioactive decay, particle accelerators, and matter-antimatter annihilation all demonstrate that E=mc2 is a fact. Since your model depends critically on E=mc2 being false, your model has been falsified. Easy peasy.

However, it's important to remember that ,even a single experiment where no mass change was observed is infinitely more evidence that the "absolutely none" that you have done.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and disproves your claim the results of the above experiments prove E=mc2 is a fact.

I provided three independent papers showing W reduction at increasing T

None of them actually shows that.

They show that the experimenters didn't take account of convection (or, in one case they show that the experimenter said that the "effect" is due to convection).

The point you keep missing is that your idea "needs" E to not be equal to MC^2But we know that, in fact, E is equal to MC^2So your idea can not be right.

All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.

. I predict T decreases m and the next experiment should measure acceleration of hot and cold objects to determine if T decreases g or m.

Only in your mathematics.

All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.Nope, all of them measured an apparent increase in mass.

The team found that the formula predicting that energy and mass are equivalent is correct to an incredible accuracy of better than one part in a million. That's 55 times more precise than the best previous test.

It isn't just math. It's measurable: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2

Quote from: Kryptid on 29/03/2018 05:36:38It isn't just math. It's measurable: http://news.mit.edu/2005/emc2Weighing a heated metal in vacuum is a much simpler experiment to test the accuracy of E=mc2.

Weighing a heated metal in vacuum is a much simpler experiment to test the accuracy of E=mc2.

No it isn't.A good analytical balance will weigh something reliably to about 1 part in 10,000,000So the next question is, how hot does something need to be to increase its mas by a part in 10^7?It doesn't matter much what you use, as the test substance, lets start with a lump of copper which weighs 1000 grams.To make it weigh 1000.0001 grams you need to add energy equivalent to 0.0001 grams.That's 10^-7 KgSo the energy MC^21E-7 * 3 E 8 *3 E 89GJ of energyThe heat capacity of copper (near room temperature) is about 0.4 J/gKSo it takes 0.4 KJ to raise the temperature of our copper block by 1 degree.So if we used 9GJ of energy it would heat it by about 22 million degrees.(Obviously,long before it reached that temperature it would melt, boil and turn into plasma- all of those effects would alter the heat capacity, but it hardly matters much.)So, what you said was that the "simple" way to do something is to weigh it then heat it to nearly the temperature of the centre of then Sun, then weigh it again, to about the best precision that we can actually weigh things (if the balance was 10 times better, you might only need to heat the sample to 2 million degrees and so on).It's pretty clear that you have no idea what you are talking about.Why don't you just go away and learn some science?

The experiment that measured E=mc2 to be accurate to more than 1 part in 1 million has already been done, so it doesn't matter what's simpler or not.

We have the data.