[guest39538]

Just nonsense, it must be right?

[Bored chemist]

As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".
The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen.

Have I understood that correctly?

OK, rather than sodium fluoride, let's look at carbon tetrafluoride.
In principle, we can get mono-isotopic ¹²C ¹⁹F₄
In practice it hardly matters that there's the ¹⁴C version present because the mass of any ions from it will differ by 2 from the ions we are looking for and they can easily be ignored.

If we look at the spectrum we will see ions corresponding to CF₄ , CF₃ ,  CF₂, and CF₄

Lets focus on CF₄ and CF₃ ions
If you are right, then the masses of the ions will be exactly 88 and 69
And the ratio of their masses will be exactly 88/69
That's 1.2753623

If the rest of the world is right then the ratio of the masses will be 87.993612 / 68.995209
That's 1.27535829

Now, you say in your paper that mass spectroscopy can give a precision of 1 in 10^10.
So it would be easy to measure the difference between those two ratios (about 3 ppm) - especially since they would be measured in the same experiment at the same time, with the same equipment.
(For clarity, I have ignored the mass of the electrons that are lost to make the ions- but it doesn't affect the principle or the outcome)
Even clearer results could be obtained by looking at other ions.
For example we could compare the bare carbon ion C+ Mass 12 (from both your viewpoint, and everyone else's) or
with the CF+ ion Mass 31 from your perspective  or 30.998403 from everyone else's.
The ratio should be 30.998403/12 or 31/12
The disparity there is about 50 ppm.
That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg"  high resolution mass spectrometer.

If there was no mass defect, people who do mass spectroscopy would have noticed.
 
There's no need to refer anything back to a classical analysis of NaF or anything else.


Now you may say that it's unlikely that anyone has looked carefully at the spectrum of CF4.
Fair enough.
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600

They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right rto prove that you are wrong.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".
The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen.

Have I understood that correctly?

OK, rather than sodium fluoride, let's look at carbon tetrafluoride.
In principle, we can get mono-isotopic ¹²C ¹⁹F₄
In practice it hardly matters that there's the ¹⁴C version present because the mass of any ions from it will differ by 2 from the ions we are looking for and they can easily be ignored.

If we look at the spectrum we will see ions corresponding to CF₄ , CF₃ ,  CF₂, and CF₄

Lets focus on CF₄ and CF₃ ions
If you are right, then the masses of the ions will be exactly 88 and 69
And the ratio of their masses will be exactly 88/69
That's 1.2753623

If the rest of the world is right then the ratio of the masses will be 87.993612 / 68.995209
That's 1.27535829

Now, you say in your paper that mass spectroscopy can give a precision of 1 in 10^10.
So it would be easy to measure the difference between those two ratios (about 3 ppm) - especially since they would be measured in the same experiment at the same time, with the same equipment.
(For clarity, I have ignored the mass of the electrons that are lost to make the ions- but it doesn't affect the principle or the outcome)
Even clearer results could be obtained by looking at other ions.
For example we could compare the bare carbon ion C+ Mass 12 (from both your viewpoint, and everyone else's) or
with the CF+ ion Mass 31 from your perspective  or 30.998403 from everyone else's.
The ratio should be 30.998403/12 or 31/12
The disparity there is about 50 ppm.
That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg"  high resolution mass spectrometer.

If there was no mass defect, people who do mass spectroscopy would have noticed.
 
There's no need to refer anything back to a classical analysis of NaF or anything else.


Now you may say that it's unlikely that anyone has looked carefully at the spectrum of CF4.
Fair enough.
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600

They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right rto prove that you are wrong.

You wrote: "As far as I understand it, your contention is that there is no "mass defect".The mass of a sodium atom is exactly 23 times that of a hydrogen atom, and that of fluorine is exactly 19 times that of hydrogen."

You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"

 I don't know about your "spectrum" spectroscopy physics. Why you talk about : "That's easily within the range of a commercial "off the peg"  high resolution mass spectrometer." If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.

The point is cannot use any technique of mass measurements like ions deflections in electric/magnetic fields - these are related to mass spectrometry and the Lorentz force law is not verified!  You don't disprove mass spectrometry using any related technique like ions spectrum, etc...but by using verified scale balances only.

You have to do simple mass composition analysis of CF3/CF4 using chemical methods, the weights are obtained from precision scale balance - not from ions spectrum!

So what is the mass composition of CF4 as C/4F. Where do you get the data from? What is the error estimate.   

Chan Rasjid.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

...
But the whole point of using high resolution mass spectrometers is to distinguish between molecules - for example octanone with mass 128.120115
and naphthalene with mass 128.062600

They do that, every day- that's the reason for spending the money on these machines.
According to your idea- where there is no mass defect, those two molecules would have exactly the same mass.
They don't.
Mass spectroscopy is, at least, close enough to right to prove that you are wrong.

if  octanone  and naphthalene have different chemical formulas (same isotopes), they don't have the same mass - by whatever means of measurement!

Chan Rasjid.

[Bored chemist]

You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"

OK
And, do you think that a molecule of naphthalene made from 10 carbon atoms and 8 hydrogen atoms would weigh exactly 128?
At least, for the molecules where all the atoms are the "light" versions- rather than heavier isotopes i.e. ¹²C₁₀¹H₈
?
Surely 10 * 12  + 8 is 128
What about Octanone ¹²C ₈ ¹H₁₆¹⁶O ?
Again, surely 12*8 + 16*1 +16 =128

So, if there's no mass defect a naphthalene molecule made entirely of those isotopes will weigh the same as a molecule of octanone made from the isotopes indicated.

Do you agree that they should, in your model- where there is no mass defect- have the same mass?

[Bored chemist]

If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.

Why do you feel that refusal to learn is helpful?

The output of a mass spectrometer is a graph of signal, i.e. the number of ions detected, vs mass of the ions.
Here is a (very low resolution) spectrum of CF4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C75730&Mask=200#Mass-Spec

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

You are correct. This is exactly the contention in my paper :"Is Mass Spectrometry Accurate ?"

OK
And, do you think that a molecule of naphthalene made from 10 carbon atoms and 8 hydrogen atoms would weigh exactly 128?
At least, for the molecules where all the atoms are the "light" versions- rather than heavier isotopes i.e. ¹²C₁₀¹H₈
?
Surely 10 * 12  + 8 is 128
What about Octanone ¹²C ₈ ¹H₁₆¹⁶O ?
Again, surely 12*8 + 16*1 +16 =128

So, if there's no mass defect a naphthalene molecule made entirely of those isotopes will weigh the same as a molecule of octanone made from the isotopes indicated.

Do you agree that they should, in your model- where there is no mass defect- have the same mass?

Yes, I am wrong here. Octanone and napthalene have the same mass according to my model of mass conservation - both have mass 128 amu.

If the the mass spectrum of octanone and napthalene differs and could be used as a technique to identify ions, its very useful. But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance. There is no rule that with deflections in electric or magnetic fields showing difference, their true mass must be different - only Lorentz law says it but law is not verified.   

Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu. Where you get the data from? What are the error estimate?

Chan Rasjid.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

If you insist I "start to learn more..." before I start writing paper on physics, I have nothing more to much say and just stop to give answers to your arguments.

Why do you feel that refusal to learn is helpful?

The output of a mass spectrometer is a graph of signal, i.e. the number of ions detected, vs mass of the ions.
Here is a (very low resolution) spectrum of CF4
https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C75730&Mask=200#Mass-Spec [nofollow]

By nature, I do not like to learn more than needed at hand. I hope for a Nobel prize without a need for a B.Sc degree - its called utter faith in lucky luck! And I also have utter faith that when I need help, someone at the right place and the right time would pop up to offer me the needed help.

Please! Help me to debunk the binding energy theory of Emc2 from mass deficits and the data from NIST.  I don't know about the spectrum shown in the link. Does it relate directly to the mass of the molecule - what balance scale or weighing technique is used to get the molecule mass in amu. Or are they deduced through some theory formula? 

Chan Rasjid.

[Bored chemist]

But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance.

Yes, it does.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be the same in every single experiment that looked at the question.
It is currently known to be true within 1 part in 10^17

https://web.archive.org/web/20100401114244/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/PAG/index_files/Page1098.htm

Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu.

What do you mean?
There is nothing particularly special about them- they just happen to have the same mass number.
You can find data on them on wiki.
I used this calculator to get the true masses
https://www.sisweb.com/referenc/tools/exactmass.htm
There are others.
The masses are going to be correct to within a part in a million.
If you want to look up the error analysis, I'm sure you can find it on-line somewhere.

And if Lorentz law didn't work then a lot of equipment like magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail.
So , we know it works.


How would you explain how two ions- derived from octanone and from naphthalene give apparently different masses in a mass spectrometer?
How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?


Also, because you have (laughably) refused to find out how mass spectrometers work, you don't understand that some of them don't rely on magnetic fields to separate different masses.
In those machines Lorentz force is irrelevant.
How do you explain why machines that use magnetic fields give the same result as those which do not?

[Bored chemist]

By nature, I do not like to learn more than needed at hand.

It is clear  that you need more knowledge at hand to stop you saying things that make no sense.

I hope for a Nobel prize without a need for a B.Sc degree

You will certainly not succeed in debunking mass spectrometry unless you understand mass spectrometry.
You will just keep making a fool of yourself.

[ChanRasjid (OP)]

But it says nothing about how the two different molecules would weigh with a scale balance.

Yes, it does.
Gravitational mass and inertial mass have been shown to be the same in every single experiment that looked at the question.
It is currently known to be true within 1 part in 10^17

https://web.archive.org/web/20100401114244/http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/PAG/index_files/Page1098.htm [nofollow]

You say the 2 molecules weigh different, I say same 128 amu.

Again, can you tell me the element mass composition of octanone or napthalene in amu.

What do you mean?
There is nothing particularly special about them- they just happen to have the same mass number.
You can find data on them on wiki.
I used this calculator to get the true masses
https://www.sisweb.com/referenc/tools/exactmass.htm [nofollow]
There are others.
The masses are going to be correct to within a part in a million.
If you want to look up the error analysis, I'm sure you can find it on-line somewhere.

I posed the wrong question. Just go back to NaF.
Give me the mass composition of NaF in Na/F. Where do you get the data. Give some idea of error estimate? Hope I get my data this 3rd time asking.

And if Lorentz law didn't work then a lot of equipment like magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail.
So , we know it works.

"magnetrons and cyclotrons would fail" No! They would run as usual as long as the power plug is plug to a power point. Only thing is: "Anything in, garbage out" from those equipments.

Please know that my mentioned 2 papers earlier demolish all of current modern physics - all known modern relativistic  physics - CERN, Standard model,...It is like a tsunami covering every inch of the earth surface! And what you see when the waters go away is what is the equivalent in the landscape of the physics world from my 2 papers. Nothing familiar remains! 

Now you know why they should actually give me the Nobel prize in physics 2009!

How would you explain how two ions- derived from octanone and from naphthalene give apparently different masses in a mass spectrometer?
How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?

You ask: "How would the Lorentz force "know" to treat them differently?"
Answer: "How would I know how the Lorentz force know!"

In ancient times, when an apple falls on a persons head, he learns to avoid walking under an apple tree!

Also, because you have (laughably) refused to find out how mass spectrometers work, you don't understand that some of them don't rely on magnetic fields to separate different masses.
In those machines Lorentz force is irrelevant.
How do you explain why machines that use magnetic fields give the same result as those which do not?

Tell me other than electric and magnetic deflections, whats the other. [I may be wrong again]

Chan Rasjid.

[Bored chemist]

You say the 2 molecules weigh different, I say same 128 amu.

The evidence shows that their masses are different.
You are simply wrong.


This sort of thing might help
https://www.khanacademy.org/science/in-in-class-12th-physics-india/moving-charges-and-magnetism/in-in-magnets-and-magnetic-force/v/mass-spectrometer

[Bored chemist]

Answer: "How would I know how the Lorentz force know!"

You claim that it does.
If you don't know how, why do you make the claim?

[Kryptid]

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the existence of gravitational waves refutes your idea that gravity is caused by electromagnetism.

In addition to that, gravitational lensing also falsifies your model. Photons do not have electric charge and therefore are neither attracted to nor repelled by electric fields. If gravity was just a residual electromagnetic field, then the Sun's gravity would not be capable of deflecting the path of starlight and the observation that confirmed the existence of this phenomenon way back in 1919 would not have occurred.

A third physical fact in contradiction to your model is the existence of proton-proton fusion. You simultaneously claim that the strong nuclear force does not actually exist and that mass deficits do not exist. If this were true, then protons fusing together to form a deuterium or helium-4 nucleus would be impossible since, (1) the only force present is the repulsive electromagnetic force between the protons, since you deny that an attractive strong nuclear force exists and (2) since you claim that a neutron is a simple addition of a proton and an electron, you shouldn't be capable of converting protons into neutrons since the neutron weighs more than the proton. The only way this can be the case would be if a bound neutron actually does indeed weigh less than a free proton. However, your model denies that this is possible because such a thing requires mass deficits to exist.

And yes, we have confirmed the existence of proton-proton fusion: http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/08/underground-experiment-confirms-what-powers-sun

and

https://arxiv.org/abs/1507.02432