[Yaniv (OP)]

(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.

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

(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.)

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

(3) Therefore, your model has been falsified without any need to do your proposed experiment.

Do you have the results ? #ResultsRequired

[Kryptid]

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

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.

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

It doesn't have to be because it has already been verified by many others. It would be exactly the same thing if you proposed an experiment to test and see if water is H₂O. It's completely and utterly unnecessary.

Do you have the results ? #ResultsRequired

Yes: mass doesn't decrease at increasing temperatures because E=mc² is correct. That's a sufficiently-conclusive result.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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 ?

[Kryptid]

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

Nothing, because it won't. That's like asking, "What happens to the laws of genetic inheritance if a dog was to be impregnated by a palm tree?"

[The Spoon]

Or asking about the geotechnical implications of cheese mining on the moon.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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

Nothing, because it won't.

You have Not provided experimental evidence to support this statement.

[Bored chemist]

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.

Just as well that they are not on their own then, isn't it?

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.

Do you realise that it's your job to evince your claim?

[Bored chemist]

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

The biggest word in that post is "if".
The answer is that, if it happened we would have to reconsider.
So far, it hasn't happened.
As I have said before; come back when something changes.

[Kryptid]

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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.

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.

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.

It is important to remember you have not provided a single experiment (beside flat bits on smoothed plots of unrelated experiments) showing W does not change at increasing T. I provided three independent papers showing W reduction at increasing T and more importantly found the result of the proposed experiment is missing from the literature.

[Kryptid]

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.

You mean the same way that a thermometer put into the Sun measuring it to have a temperature of 10 kelvins would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously measured it to be about 5,800 kelvins?

Or the way that making a really long meter stick to measure the Moon's distance and finding that it was only 200 kilometers away would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously measured it to be between 360,000 and 407,000 kilometers away?

Or how the impregnation of a horse with the pollen of a pine tree resulting in a viable plant-animal hybrid would disprove all of the results of experiments that had previously demonstrated that genetics doesn't work that way?

Shall I continue with the analogies?

[Bored chemist]

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^2
But we know that, in fact, E is equal to MC^2
So your idea can not be right.

[Yaniv (OP)]

None of them actually shows that.

All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.

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).

...and in the other two cases the experimenters say T decreases g. 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.

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

Only in your mathematics.

[Bored chemist]

All of them measured W reduction at increasing T.

Nope, all of them measured an apparent increase in mass.

. 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.

Then do the **** experiment and stop wasting our time.

Only in your mathematics.

You may want to check  that with others.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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

Are you playing stupid ?

[Kryptid]

Only in your mathematics.

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

From the article:

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

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

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

[Bored chemist]

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

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 10,000,000
So 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 Kg
So the energy MC^2
1E-7  * 3 E 8 *3 E 8

9GJ of energy
The heat capacity of copper (near room temperature) is about 0.4 J/gK
So 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?

[Kryptid]

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

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.

[Yaniv (OP)]

No it isn't.
A good analytical balance will weigh something reliably to about 1 part in 10,000,000
So 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 Kg
So the energy MC^2
1E-7  * 3 E 8 *3 E 8

9GJ of energy
The heat capacity of copper (near room temperature) is about 0.4 J/gK
So 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?

You have made a prediction. Now let's test it.

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.

Curving charged particles in magnetic fields is a completely different experiment to weighing a heated metal in vacuum. Don't you think E=mc2 should be tested by different types of experiments ?

We have the data.

We don't have the data on the effect of T on W. All we have are predictions.