The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. Experiment to test W=mg
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25   Go Down

Experiment to test W=mg

  • 496 Replies
  • 47314 Views
  • 3 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #460 on: 30/03/2018 22:11:39 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 30/03/2018 21:53:32
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #461 on: 30/03/2018 22:14:22 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 28/03/2018 19:07:23
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #462 on: 31/03/2018 02:39:35 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 30/03/2018 21:53:32
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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...

Quote
#ResultsRequired

By no one but you, apparently.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?
« Last Edit: 31/03/2018 02:44:03 by Kryptid »
Logged
 

Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #463 on: 31/03/2018 03:36:11 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 02:39:35
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.
Logged
 

Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #464 on: 31/03/2018 04:18:27 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/03/2018 03:36:11
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.

Quote
...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.

Quote
...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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

Quote
Or in the future. #ResultsRequired

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

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
 



Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #465 on: 31/03/2018 05:48:11 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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 ?
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
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.
Logged
 

Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #466 on: 31/03/2018 06:30:16 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/03/2018 05:48:11
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.

Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 04:18:27
Where are the results of the proposed experiment ?

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

Quote
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?

Quote
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?

Quote
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.

Quote
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.
Logged
 

Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #467 on: 31/03/2018 07:06:13 »
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
Either no one ever did it or they didn't publish it.
Why ?
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
Seriously? You don't think F=ma has been tested?
Not by the proposed experiment.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
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.
Quote from: Kryptid on 31/03/2018 06:30:16
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #468 on: 31/03/2018 10:40:03 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/03/2018 03:36:11
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?
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #469 on: 31/03/2018 10:51:14 »
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/03/2018 10:40:03
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
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #470 on: 31/03/2018 11:34:00 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/03/2018 10:51:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/03/2018 10:40:03
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #471 on: 31/03/2018 15:06:54 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 31/03/2018 07:06:13
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.

Quote
Why ?

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

Quote
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?

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

Evidence please.

Quote
Mass and energy are the same only in your theory.

A theory that has massive experimental support.

Quote
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.
Logged
 

Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #472 on: 01/04/2018 00:53:23 »
Is anybody out there got the balls to strip the Emperor of it's clothes ? #ResultsRequired
« Last Edit: 01/04/2018 00:55:26 by Yaniv »
Logged
 



Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #473 on: 01/04/2018 00:59:09 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 01/04/2018 00:53:23
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.
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #474 on: 01/04/2018 11:46:35 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 01/04/2018 00:53:23
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #475 on: 11/09/2018 18:14:23 »

* animal farm.jpg (137.71 kB, 862x562 - viewed 121 times.)
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #476 on: 11/09/2018 18:47:27 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 11/09/2018 18:14:23

You do not seem to have grasped the concept of "evidence".
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 



Offline Yaniv (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 205
  • Activity:
    0%
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #477 on: 23/10/2018 12:48:52 »
Logged
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Naked Science Forum GOD!
  • *******
  • 21931
  • Activity:
    100%
  • Thanked: 508 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #478 on: 23/10/2018 19:29:03 »
We already have the results.
They were old news when you started this thread and I posteddthis.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/11/2017 19:49:21
Quote from: Yaniv on 08/11/2017 19:17:11
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.
Logged
Please disregard all previous signatures.
 

Online Kryptid

  • Global Moderator
  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ********
  • 5717
  • Activity:
    86.5%
  • Thanked: 240 times
    • View Profile
Re: Experiment to test W=mg
« Reply #479 on: 23/10/2018 22:39:07 »
Quote from: Yaniv on 23/10/2018 12:48:52


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).
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 ... 22 23 [24] 25   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags: mass  / gravity  / foolish hypothesis 
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.139 seconds with 77 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.