[Bored chemist]

I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.

Do the experiment.
Publish the details here.
Break the conspiracy.


Or don't.

[Bored chemist]

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.

[Kryptid]

You don't have data for the proposed experiment.

I think curving charged particles in magnetic fields to test accuracy of E=mc2 don't tell us anything useful about the results of the proposed experiment.

So let me get this straight: if I have performed multiple, high-precision experiments demonstrating that water has mass, you are telling me that those experiments don't tell us anything useful about whether a glass full of water has more mass than an empty glass? The only difference between that and your proposed scenario is that you replace the water with energy and the empty glass with a piece of metal.

I think hiding the results of the experiment from the literature to protect funds for many projects in theoretical physics is a conspiracy.

You mean like the way that there was a conspiracy to keep the results from quantum physics experiments and relativity experiments a secret in order to protect funds for classical physics projects?

Oh, right.

That never happened.

Your claim W increases at increasing T has not been experimentally proven.

Right, just like we have to actually measure the mass of a glass full of water in order to know for sure that it weighs more than an empty glass...

#ResultsRequired

By no one but you, apparently.

I don't think they invented the results in this case.

If they didn't invent the results, then why are you telling us they are unreliable? You trust the results of a few ambiguous papers you found on the Internet more than you trust the numerous, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the validity of E=mc².

I think physicists invent corrections to false mathematical equations and this can be tested by concluding the proposed experiment.

If E=mc² was a false mathematical equation, it would have been revealed as false by all of the experiments that have been done to test it in the past. Please explain to us how E=mc² could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass?

[Yaniv (OP)]

So let me get this straight: if I have performed multiple, high-precision experiments demonstrating that water has mass, you are telling me that those experiments don't tell us anything useful about whether a glass full of water has more mass than an empty glass? The only difference between that and your proposed scenario is that you replace the water with energy and the empty glass with a piece of metal.

In my theory water adds positive "charge" instead of "mass" and I don't understand the rest of this analogy.

You mean like the way that there was a conspiracy to keep the results from quantum physics experiments and relativity experiments a secret in order to protect funds for classical physics projects?

...or this analogy.

Right, just like we have to actually measure the mass of a glass full of water in order to know for sure that it weighs more than an empty glass...

...or this analogy.

By no one but you, apparently.

And tax payers funding research and many scientists looking for unification theories and many people put-off by traditional physics.

If they didn't invent the results, then why are you telling us they are unreliable? You trust the results of a few ambiguous papers you found on the Internet more than you trust the numerous, repeatable experiments that demonstrate the validity of E=mc2.

A few ambiguous papers measuring W reduction at increasing T are all I found in the literature. You are talking about different experiments. E=mc2 has Not been validated by the proposed experiment.

If E=mc2 was a false mathematical equation, it would have been revealed as false by all of the experiments that have been done to test it in the past.

Or in the future. #ResultsRequired

Please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass?

E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.

[Kryptid]

In my theory water adds positive "charge" instead of "mass" and I don't understand the rest of this analogy.

Regardless of what you think causes mass, the fact of the matter is that water has mass. If you take something with a given amount of mass (say 10 grams of water) and put it in a container (say, a 5-gram glass), the addition of the water did not somehow magically make the glass of water weigh less than the 5-gram mass of the empty glass. Yet that's exactly what you say that energy does when you put it into something. You say that putting energy (which we know has mass) into something makes it less massive. That's exactly the same as saying that putting water into an empty glass makes the glass less massive. It contradicts all logic.

...or this analogy.

Your claim is that scientists invent conspiracies in order to hide new physics discoveries. My analogy is that important discoveries which fundamentally changed the way that we view physics (such as quantum physics and relativity) were not the subject of scientists trying to cover them up with conspiracies. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that radical discoveries in physics are covered up by conspiracies. So there's no reason to believe (and no evidence) that your proposed model is being covered up by some conspiracy.

...or this analogy.

It's exactly what I said. We don't have to weigh a glass of water in order to know that adding water to it made it heavier. It's for the exact same reason that we know that adding energy to something makes it heavier too.

And tax payers funding research and many scientists looking for unification theories and many people put-off by traditional physics.

Name some (other than the ones that wrote those articles and yourself, I mean). I want citations.

A few ambiguous papers measuring W reduction at increasing T are all I found in the literature. You are talking about different experiments. E=mc2 has Not been validated by the proposed experiment.

You're dodging my question. Why do you think the results are existing experiments are unreliable? What blaring error did they make in their calculations or measurements?

Or in the future. #ResultsRequired

Then why did the experiments designed to test it in the past not already falsify it?

E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you to "please explain to us how E=mc² could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass." Explain how that experiment got the results it did if E=mc² is false.

I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.

What interests? I'm not even a scientist. Whether or not E=mc² is true or not has no bearing on my personal life or job.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Regardless of what you think causes mass, the fact of the matter is that water has mass. If you take something with a given amount of mass (say 10 grams of water) and put it in a container (say, a 5-gram glass), the addition of the water did not somehow magically make the glass of water weigh less than the 5-gram mass of the empty glass. Yet that's exactly what you say that energy does when you put it into something. You say that putting energy (which we know has mass) into something makes it less massive. That's exactly the same as saying that putting water into an empty glass makes the glass less massive. It contradicts all logic.

I still don't understand this analogy.

Your claim is that scientists invent conspiracies in order to hide new physics discoveries. My analogy is that important discoveries which fundamentally changed the way that we view physics (such as quantum physics and relativity) were not the subject of scientists trying to cover them up with conspiracies. Therefore, there's no reason to believe that radical discoveries in physics are covered up by conspiracies. So there's no reason to believe (and no evidence) that your proposed model is being covered up by some conspiracy.

Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?

You're dodging my question. Why do you think the results are existing experiments are unreliable? What blaring error did they make in their calculations or measurements?

The biggest error was to build physics on F=ma which has not been thoroughly tested.

Then why did the experiments designed to test it in the past not already falsify it?

I suspect modifications to mathematical equations could bridge the gap between predictions and results.

That's not what I asked you. I asked you to "please explain to us how E=mc2 could possibly have been verified to an accuracy of more than 1 part in 1 million if energy doesn't have mass." Explain how that experiment got the results it did if E=mc2 is false.

I am not familiar with the details of the experiment to determine how they got the results they did. All I know is W reduction at increasing T disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired

What interests? I'm not even a scientist. Whether or not E=mc2 is true or not has no bearing on my personal life or job.

I am sure the "master" on space and time wouldn't like relativity falsified.

[Kryptid]

I still don't understand this analogy.

To put it in the simplest terms i possibly can: you claim that adding mass to something paradoxically makes it lose mass. That's what my water analogy meant.

Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?

Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.

The biggest error was to build physics on F=ma which has not been thoroughly tested.

Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?

I suspect modifications to mathematical equations could bridge the gap between predictions and results.

They were testing the equation itself, not some mythical modification of it. Do you think they were idiots that don't know how to do basic algebra?

I am not familiar with the details of the experiment to determine how they got the results they did. All I know is W reduction at increasing T disproves E=mc2. #ResultsRequired

Which is why we know it doesn't happen: you don't make things lighter by adding mass to them.

I am sure the "master" on space and time wouldn't like relativity falsified.

You do realize that the quote in my signature came from another user on this board named "Thebox", right? Not from me. I put it there specifically because of how ridiculous of a statement it was.

[Yaniv (OP)]

To put it in the simplest terms i possibly can: you claim that adding mass to something paradoxically makes it lose mass. That's what my water analogy meant.

No. I claim adding heat to something makes it lose mass.

Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.

Why ?

Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?

Not by the proposed experiment.

They were testing the equation itself, not some mythical modification of it. Do you think they were idiots that don't know how to do basic algebra?

I think E=mc2 is based on previously modified equations.

Which is why we know it doesn't happen: you don't make things lighter by adding mass to them.

Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.

You do realize that the quote in my signature came from another user on this board named "Thebox", right? Not from me. I put it there specifically because of how ridiculous of a statement it was.

I didn't realize that. Either way, you are a relativist who is reluctant to test a prediction of his theory against mine.

[Bored chemist]

E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.

Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?

You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you  understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?

Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.


As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.

The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?

[Yaniv (OP)]

Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?

You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you  understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?

Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.


As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.

The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?

Long scrolls don't impress me especially when they say nothing new. #ResultsRequired

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand that if E=MC2 is true, then it's true whatever experiment you use to test it?

You say "E=mc2 has Not been verified to an accuracy of 1 part in 1 million by the proposed experiment. "
And I have pointed out that there's a really good reason for that.
The proposed experiment is stupid.
Really really dumb, as a way to test Einstein's mass energy relationship.
Don't you  understand that, even with the best balances, you would have to heat something much hotter then the hottest furnace to be able to see the mass increase (and the balance would, of course, be destroyed by the heat)?

Don't you understand that's why nobody will bother to do the experiment?
We know from countless other experiments that your proposed method for testing the equation can not work. Other experiments will actually work, so we spend our resources on those instead.


As for "I understand you object tooth and bone to the results of the experiment to protect your interests.", it's just silly.
I don't have any interest in it being true (though you have a considerable one in it being false).
I keep saying that you should test it- do the experiment.
Others have said the same.
That's not what we would do if we had any interest in keeping the results a secret.

The only person here with a personal interest in E=MC2 being either true or false is you.
And yet, you refuse to test it.
Are you scared of the answer?

Long scrolls don't impress me especially when they say nothing new. #ResultsRequired

I'm not asking you to be impressed, I'm asking you to answer the questions.

[Kryptid]

No. I claim adding heat to something makes it lose mass.

Heat is a form of energy and energy has mass. The experiments I've mentioned before clearly demonstrate this. So you are claiming that adding mass makes something less massive.

Why ?

Either nobody thought to do it or didn't think it was important.

Not by the proposed experiment.

We haven't tested the Sun's temperature with a thermometer either. Do you think we absolutely must do that in order to know that the Sun is hot?

I think E=mc2 is based on previously modified equations.

Evidence please.

Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.

A theory that has massive experimental support.

I didn't realize that. Either way, you are a relativist who is reluctant to test a prediction of his theory against mine.

That's like saying that I'm reluctant to test a prediction of the Earth being round because I believe the Earth is round.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired

[Kryptid]

Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired

It would be pointless for any of us here to perform your experiment. If we did it and got a negative result, you would complain that either (1) we didn't do the experiment correctly, (2) it wasn't precise enough to measure the effect, or (3) we actually got a positive result but are lying about it for whatever reason. I fear the same would be true for anyone you asked to do the experiment. That's why it's best if you do it yourself.

[Bored chemist]

Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired

You just told the world you have no balls.

[Yaniv (OP)]

[Bored chemist]

You do not seem to have grasped the concept of "evidence".

[Yaniv (OP)]

[Bored chemist]

We already have the results.
They were old news when you started this thread and I posteddthis.

I think the experiment should be carried out using the principle of a calorimeter.

I think you don't know what you are talking about.
Because that experiment is done frequently.
There's a bit of kit specially for doing it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogravimetric_analysis

You can rest assured that, if your ideas were right, people would have noticed.
So you are wrong.

And we have posted other evidence since then.

Your inability to understand this is your problem; not ours.

[Kryptid]

Might I suggest an alternative strategy? Perhaps instead of wasting your time talking to people who are either (1) incapable of performing your experiment, or (2) unwilling to perform your experiment, why don't you go looking for someone who is (in other words, nobody here, apparently).