0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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 don't have the data on the effect of T on W. All we have are predictions.
Different kinds of experiments have already been done to verify it and are being done every day. Positron emission tomography measures that gamma ray energies equal to that predicted by E=mc2 are released when electrons and positrons annihilate each other. Even as far back as 1932, the Cockcroft-Walton generator verified E=mc2 to an accuracy of 0.5% by transmuting lithium into helium and measuring the mass and kinetic energy of the resulting particles. E=mc2 is tested every time a nuclear reactor is powered up. We have more than enough information to know that E=mc2 is highly accurate.
We don't have data on the temperature measurement of a thermometer in the Sun. All we have are predictions.
Now let's test it.
It has been.https://www.nature.com/articles/4381096ahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_binding_energyetc.The equation is a consequence of relativity.Relativity has been tested many times to high precisionhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativityhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativitySo, there's no sensible argument that the equation is wrong.
The prediction is that the change in mass will be far too small to measure for any practical temperature range.
We don't know if E=mc2 is highly accurate at predicting the effect of T on W.
If you could place a thermometer in the sun, would you ?
E=mc2 has Not been tested by the proposed experiment.
It has to be. We know from E=mc2 that energy has an associated mass. Where there is extra energy, there is extra mass to go with it. Heat is a form of energy. So an object must weigh more when it is hot than when it is cold.
Just as it isn't necessary to weigh heated metal in a vacuum to establish that extra energy adds extra mass to an object.
This is a statement of faith, not fact.
References provided hints to the contrary added energy subtracts weight of an object.
References with identifiable problems.
Just as the claim that the Sun is hot is faith, not fact?
Which should be resolved by concluding the experiment.
I find your analogies stupid.
It isn't necessary to do so when we already have enough information about the laws of physics to tell us what will happen.
They're perfectly apt analogies. You claim that, despite mountains of evidence that E=mc2 is correct, we can't use it to make accurate predictions about the effect that thermal energy has on mass.
You claimed that an experiment which determined that E=mc2 is accurate to 1 part in 1 million (in addition to many other previous confirmatory experiments) is "faith, not fact". If you can call some kinds of high-precision, hard data "faith, not fact", then there's nothing keeping you from doing the same to other forms of high-precision, hard data.
Like the Sun's temperature, for example. Or do you just have some kind of special double standard that you only apply to E=mc2 that you let other scientific principles get a free pass on?
Now an experiment is required to test if your prediction matches the results.
We know that the change in mass is too small to measure directly.
Did it occur to you that this may reflect your comprehension, rather than the analogies themselves?
I think his analogies are an attempt to confuse, deflect and discourage scientists from concluding the most important experiment in history of physics.
We don't know if the change in W is too small to measure because we haven't completed the experiment.
Either do it, or shut up about it.
Are you suggesting the laws of physics should not be tested anymore ?
You are welcome to make predictions about the effect of T on W. Next is to test your predictions against results.
No. I claim your statement W does Not change at increasing T is faith because we don't have the results of the experiment.
I think had it been possible to place a thermometer in the sun it would have been a great experiment to test if it's readings agree with theoretical predictions.
Had I done the experiment myself you would have discarded the results as quickly as you discarded the results of the references provided
We know from the before-mentioned experiments that energy has mass. Therefore, by saying that mass increasing with temperature is "faith, not fact", you most certainly are saying that the high-precision experiments used to determine the accuracy of E=mc2 are "faith, not fact".
Your claim W increasing with T is "faith" based on your confidence in your theory.
We don't have the "facts".
I suspect all physical equations based on F=ma are false and over the years developed and corrected by addition of new functions to match results and E=mc2 is a reduced expression of many equations.
W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves E=mc2 and provides support for my view on the evolution of physics.
It's confidence in data.
If you don't think experimental data is factual (or at least as close to fact as one can philosophically reach), then there's no point in doing experiments of any kind because obviously experiments don't tell us anything useful.
So then you are positing a conspiracy?
How can you disprove something that's already been proven?
Do you think that physicists are part of some massive conspiracy that invented the experimental results out of thin air when they said that they had measured E=mc2 to be accurate to 1 part in 1 million? That's the only option you have. In order for your model to be correct, those physicists must have been lying (or at least exceedingly stupid).