[The Spoon]

A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?

No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.

Do you have any idea how ridiculous you sound?

[Yaniv (OP)]

A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?

No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.

Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.

[The Spoon]

A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?

No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.

Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.

Yet you are yet to provide evidence that your claim is true .

[Origin]

No. The future of earthly matters has not been determined yet. The results of the experiment could provide the keys to the temple.

I believe you have lost your tenuous grip on reality.

[Kryptid]

A vaporized metal is still a gas. If we have that gas in a container, will it lose all of its weight?

No, because gas atoms can hold a finite number of heat particles and heat particles repel each other and will escape the container.

Given that gases can reach millions or billions of degrees in the cores of stars and supernova, that sample of gas with merely 200,000 times the energy of the original metal is nowhere remotely close to the limit of how much heat a gas can hold.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.

We don't need astrophysical calculations to know that gases can reach millions of degrees. We can get gases that hot inside of fusion reactors right here on Earth where we can measure the temperature firsthand. Look up the Tokamak.

By the way, weight reducing with temperature would not disprove F=ma.

[Bored chemist]

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and discards your astrophysical calculations.

Only if it exists, and we know it doesn't.

Why do you do it?
Do you enjoy getting laughed at?
Do you think telling these silly stories gets you  into favour with God?

[Yaniv (OP)]

By the way, weight reducing with temperature would not disprove F=ma.

Explain ?

[Kryptid]

Explain ?

All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Explain ?

All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.

But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?

[Kryptid]

Explain ?

All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.

But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?

If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.

So measuring a loss of weight with an increase in temperature would not be a sufficient test to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Explain ?

All that means is that a hot object weighs less and thus the gravitational force acting on it is less than it would be before. That doesn't make F=ma wrong.

But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?

If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.

So measuring a loss of weight with an increase in temperature would not be a sufficient test to demonstrate the accuracy of your model.

W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?

[Kryptid]

W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?

It wouldn't, because:

If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.

[Kryptid]

I would also like to point out that you can perform the experiment yourself if you really want to. If it's that important to you, save up some money and invest in the equipment:

You can buy a high-precision scale. This one can weigh a 210 gram weight with up to 0.001 gram precision. Given the numbers you posted before, a 20 gram weight changed by 0.0001 grams when heated 5 Celsius. That means a 200 gram weight should change by 0.001 grams. That's within the scale's range: https://ussolid.com/u-s-solid-0-001-g-precision-balance-digital-lab-scale-1-mg-analytical-electronic-balance-with-2-lcd-screens-210-g-x-0-001g.html?gclid=CjwKCAiArNOeBhAHEiwAze_nKLdZdl-utC1i70_29v87YslyjFqlzM-w6ZVIJTQgv-MtleitdSOqKRoC2lsQAvD_BwE

You can also buy vacuum chambers and copper.

[Yaniv (OP)]

W reduction at increasing T should be sufficient to demonstrate the inaccuracy of W=mg ? or not ?

It wouldn't, because:

If there was a mass loss equal to the weight loss in the hot object, then both the hot object and the cold object would still fall at the same rate.

Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?

[Kryptid]

Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?

No. Mass can still be conserved if it is going somewhere else.

So not only would you need to demonstrate that weight drops with rising temperature, but you would also need to show that the mass and weight change at different rates.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Are you now suggesting m (mass) is not the conserved quantity ?

No. Mass can still be conserved if it is going somewhere else.

Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?

[Kryptid]

Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?

Somewhere else within the same Universe (presumably). That would depend upon the specifics of the hypothesis.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Going somewhere else out of the equation or out of our universe ?

Somewhere else within the same Universe (presumably). That would depend upon the specifics of the hypothesis.

Into higher dimensions than three ?

[Kryptid]

Into higher dimensions than three ?

Unlikely, but then again, that depends on the hypothesis. I am not citing any specific hypothesis. Anyone can speculate on any number of places the mass goes. The exact location is irrelevant. The point of this thought exercise is to demonstrate that a loss of weight with increasing temperature can be perfectly consistent with F=ma.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Into higher dimensions than three ?

Unlikely, but then again, that depends on the hypothesis. I am not citing any specific hypothesis. Anyone can speculate on any number of places the mass goes. The exact location is irrelevant. The point of this thought exercise is to demonstrate that a loss of weight with increasing temperature can be perfectly consistent with F=ma.

I don't accept this nonsense. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma. #ResultsRequired