[Kryptid]

I don't accept this nonsense.

Then give a reason for it. If you can dismiss something as nonsense without explaining why, then we can do the same thing with your model.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.

No it doesn't, as I've explained. If mass is lost as weight is lost, then F=ma is preserved.

#ResultsRequired

Then do the experiment and get the results. Buy the equipment like I said in the earlier post.

[Yaniv (OP)]

I don't accept this nonsense.

Then give a reason for it. If you can dismiss something as nonsense without explaining why, then we can do the same thing with your model.

In my theory the difference between forces determines weight and the ratio between forces determines rate of fall. You didn't read my theory. Did you ?

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma.

No it doesn't, as I've explained. If mass is lost as weight is lost, then F=ma is preserved.

This contradicts conservation of mass.

#ResultsRequired

Then do the experiment and get the results. Buy the equipment like I said in the earlier post.

Earlier you said you can't do the experiment. So can't I. This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.

[Bored chemist]

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

Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.

This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.

It is and you accuse them of lying

I would bet the flat lines at the end of thermogravimetric graphs are superficially flattened.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory

Stop lying about having a theory.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.

The equation F=ma was invented by a human, Isaac Newton, not by God.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 02:45:53
But we agree hot and cold objects fall at the same rate. Don't we ?
Yes, and since we know that f=ma (by definition) this proves that the weight doesn't change with temperature.

The equation F=ma was invented by a human, Isaac Newton, not by God.

And the word force and its definition were invented by man, not God.

Did you somehow think you had a  point there?

[Kryptid]

In my theory the difference between forces determines weight and the ratio between forces determines rate of fall. You didn't read my theory. Did you ?

First of all, I don't know what that has to do with what I said. I was pointing out that you were claiming that what I said was nonsense without giving a proper explanation for why it was nonsense.

Secondly, the rate of acceleration of a body is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Say we have two sets of two cars tied together by a rope pulling against each other. In the first set, Car A is pulling with a force of 1 millinewton and Car B is pulling with a force of 2 millinewtons. The net pulling force is thus 1 millinewton towards Car B. In the second set, Car C is pulling with a force of 1 kilonewton and Car D is pulling with a force of 2 kilonewtons. The net pulling force is thus 1 kilonewton towards Car D. The ratio of the forces in both scenarios is 2.

You cannot honestly think that the cars will accelerate by the same amount in both scenarios.

This contradicts conservation of mass.

Mass transfer does not violate conservation of mass. A piece of uranium loses mass over time, but that is because the lost mass is being carried away by subatomic particles.

Earlier you said you can't do the experiment. So can't I. This experiment should be concluded by proper experimentalists.

The reason you can't is because you don't own the needed equipment, but the needed equipment is available for purchase. You can therefore solve that problem by buying the equipment and doing the experiment yourself. If you can't find anyone else to do the experiment for you, you might as well save up some money and do it yourself.

[Yaniv (OP)]

what that has to do with what

https://twitter.com/Yaniv_Stern/status/1619767253351927810/photo/1

Don't forget to click on the link to view image.

In my theory positively charged objects experience positive repulsive forces from all directions. When forces from opposite directions balance an object remains suspended in space and weightless (a). When forces from opposite directions are unequal, an object is pushed by the stronger force towards the weaker force (b). A free object moves towards the weaker force while a stationary object gains weight. (c) The difference between opposite forces determines weight, a larger difference is heavier and a smaller difference is lighter. The theory proposes a hotter object is less positively charged and should experience a smaller difference between forces and should weigh less than a colder more positively charged object. Rate of fall (g) is determined by the ratio between forces acting on an object.

[Kryptid]

Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction  will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction  will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory

You should probably stop preaching about your idea.

[Kryptid]

Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction  will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.

If they experience equal forces then they will have the same weight, because weight is a force.

[Yaniv (OP)]

Acceleration is not determined by the ratio of the forces involved. Look back at my car example. A pair of cars experiencing a net force of 1 millinewton in one direction  will not accelerate at the same rate as they would if they were experiencing one kilonewton of net force instead.

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces and rates of fall.

If they experience equal forces then they will have the same weight, because weight is a force.

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.

But you said earlier that the force (i.e the weight) will depend on temperature.
It does not.
And you are still lying about your PoS idea being a theory.
Why is that?

[Yaniv (OP)]

In my theory two objects of the same charge (mass) experience equal forces, weights and rates of fall.

But you said earlier that the force (i.e the weight) will depend on temperature.
It does not.
And you are still lying about your PoS idea being a theory.
Why is that?

In my theory T decreases the charge, forces and weight of an object, but not it's rate of fall.

[Kryptid]

If charge is considered mass in your model, and objects lose charge (and thus mass) when they get hot, then why not just say that the mass and weight are both lost at the same rate as temperature increases? That way, objects falling at the same rate regardless of temperature happens naturally as a consequence of F=ma instead of in contradiction to it.

[Yaniv (OP)]

If charge is considered mass in your model, and objects lose charge (and thus mass) when they get hot, then why not just say that the mass and weight are both lost at the same rate as temperature increases? That way, objects falling at the same rate regardless of temperature happens naturally as a consequence of F=ma instead of in contradiction to it.

I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.

[Kryptid]

I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.

If the particles carrying away charge have mass, then mass would indeed be lost by the object being heated. The total mass of the Universe would still be the same, though, since those mass-carrying particles would still be out floating around somewhere.

There is a second experiment that would test your idea: dropping charged objects in a vacuum. Since you claim that the Earth has a net positive charge, then a negatively-charged object should fall faster than a positively-charged object (since the negative charge would obviously be directly attracted to the overall positive charge of the Earth, whereas a positive charge would have to rely on a local negative dipole to be attracted to the Earth (which is a weaker effect)).

[Yaniv (OP)]

Quote from: Yaniv on Today at 01:26:38
I accept F=ma if mass is not a constant but a heat-dependent variable.

If the particles carrying away charge have mass, then mass would indeed be lost by the object being heated. The total mass of the Universe would still be the same, though, since those mass-carrying particles would still be out floating around somewhere.

In my theory the charge of the universe should remain conserved throughout it's evolution.

There is a second experiment that would test your idea: dropping charged objects in a vacuum. Since you claim that the Earth has a net positive charge, then a negatively-charged object should fall faster than a positively-charged object (since the negative charge would obviously be directly attracted to the overall positive charge of the Earth, whereas a positive charge would have to rely on a local negative dipole to be attracted to the Earth (which is a weaker effect)).

In my theory negatively-charged objects still retain a net positive charge but could possibly fall faster.

[Bored chemist]

In my theory T decreases the charge, forces and weight of an object,

The light emitted by atoms is dependent on the electron charge but it is not dependent on temperature.
so we know you are still wrong.

Why are you still lying about this idea and calling it a theory when you know it doesn't work?