Yaniv

Guys, cut nonsense and get results.

Just now, DrP said:

But I don't think any of us have a 9 DP balance. ;-)

Start with 6 DP balance. I bet your calculations are wrong.

I think the experiment should use the principle of a calorimeter. Place a precision balance and a thermocouple in a vacuum chamber. Heat the vacuum chamber and record how many calories are required to raise the T of the vacuum chamber by say 10 degC and record change in W on balance. Next, place the metal sample on the balance and repeat the heating. The additional calories should tell how many calories were absorbed by the metal and subtraction of W before from W after metal was added should tell W change of the metal. 

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

What power electric heater? What power laser?

Imagine, you have electron with 230 eV kinetic energy flying through wire. It decelerates in the wire which has high resistance (230 Volts electric heater), and gives its kinetic energy to electric heater, then this energy goes to your test metal body.. It increases total mass-energy of metal piece.. Then spreads inside of this body.. and is emitted as bunch of new photons from its surface (because there is no other way to decrease temperature, no air gas molecules in vacuum).

 

What power is up to experimentalists who do the experiment.  

1 minute ago, Sensei said:

I was asking about method of heating of body in vacuum..

How do you want to increase temperature of metal (or any body) inside of vacuum.. ?

It can be done by photons (light) (like this happens with Sun -> Earth)..

or direct touch with something much hotter..

or beam of accelerated electrons..

 

Electric heater or laser can do the job.

9 minutes ago, DrP said:

As we said - it is more complicated than that and depends on other conditions. It will be difficult to work at the level of accuracy needed also. We can see from your site that there are so many basic misconceptions and wrong concepts that your experiment will prove nothing that you wrote either way, whatever the recorded outcome. It certainly won't disprove modern physics or the theory of conservation of mass or energy as you stated it might.

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, does not prove my theory right. My theory should be tested by more experiments. But, it does prove traditional physics wrong. #ResultsRequired

2 minutes ago, Strange said:

Have you heard of experimental error? Of course not. That is why you need to quantify the expected result. 

Say someone tries this experiment and they find no change. You could just say they haven't measured it accurately enough. So they get a more precise balance and do it again. You say: "still not accurate enough" and so it goes on. That is why it is pseudosience.

Again: please show the error in Noether's theorem: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem If you can't do that, then you have to admit you are wrong.

If someone do the experiment and find no change in W I could argue from a philosophical point of view that greater precision is required. If however a change in W is observed you have to drop your theory.

6 minutes ago, Sensei said:

"Increasing temperature in vacuum" is interesting subject by itself..

The only way body, levitating inside of your vacuum, can get, is in the form of photons arriving from environment around your body...

 

Highly accelerated electrons hitting your body to give their kinetic energy (and this way increasing temperature).. would give completely unreliable results, because of their enormous mass-energy.. (mass of electron = 1/1836.15 mass of proton).. You couldn't be sure that electrons fly away from test body or remained f.e. on surface..

 

Increasing T of the metal in vacuum.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

Strictly speaking, mass is not conserved; mass-energy is conserved. And this has been tested, repeatedly, to high levels of accuracy. Of course, because you don't know enough to predict a value form your "theory", it is impossible for these results to falsify your "theory".

That is because you are engaging in pseudoscience.

No change in W or an increase in W at increasing T in vacuum will falsify my theory. #ResultsRequired 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

Just had look at your website:

This is just wrong. Apart from the fact that positrons and electrons annihilate on contact and the mass of a proton is nearly 1,000 times greater than three electrons, and the fact we have experimental evidence of the strong nuclear force and the existence of quarks and ...

Just as ludicrous. Apart from the annihilation problem, the mass of protons and neutrons are about the same.

I don't understand what is wrong with people who they think they have to make up nonsense like this, rather than learning what science and evidence actually shows us. I assume it is a weird combination of laziness and arrogance ("studying is hard work, and my ideas seem sensible to me").

Don't worry. No one is ever going to perform your experiment. They will read a few sentences of your "theory" and then throw it in the bin. You might as well stop wasting your time. Feel free to carry on writing your science fiction website. But don't expect anyone (other than your fellow crackpots) to take it seriously.

That is not how science works. But I wouldn't expect you to know that, as you obviously know zero about science or the scientific method.

I guess you are not interested to do an experiment to test conservation of mass.

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

If you don't have a quantitative prediction, how can you know if the results match your predictions or not? Or even if the difference will be measurable.

To design an experiment, one would know how large this effect is. How large is the decrease per degree rise in temperature?

I can't make quantitative predictions before the results. Once you get results, say 1 microgram lost per gram per 1 degC, you can make quantitative predictions.

1 minute ago, Strange said:

You "think"? If you don't know, then no scientist is going to take you seriously.

You come up with all the reasons why not to do a relatively simple experiment. Are you not interested to measure if W changes at increasing T in vacuum to test conservation of mass ?

Use the most precise balance you can find.

7 minutes ago, DrP said:

This from your page doesn't seem quite right to me...  I do not see where this has come from - I have never seen mass/gravity described like this before- where did this come from?:-

QUOTE from Yaniv's page:

"Gravity on earth

The positive charge of earth creates a positive field (Figure 14). A cation or a nuclear located at close proximity to earth experiences this field. This positive field pulls on electrons and pushes on positrons forming a dipole with a weak positive pole facing the earth and a strong positive pole facing away from the earth. The weak positive pole decreases the repulsive force from the direction of the earth and the strong positive pole increases the repulsive cosmological force from above pushing the cation/nuclear down. 

The theory predicts electrons are pulled down to earth and positrons are pushed away from the earth and precision deflection measurements of electrons and positrons passing through a magnetic field should test if this gravity bias exists."

My theory came out from my imagination and provides many experimentally testable predictions.

2 minutes ago, DrP said:

I think it is far more complex than that - as Sensai points out there are cases where W can increase and decrease.

I am not sure I'd trust your 100mg result either...  are you sure ALL surface water molecules were removed from the surface of the metal before the initial weighing?

No, I am not sure. This is why this experiment should be carried out by proper experimentalists to exclude all possible side effects on weight.

And this experiment should be carried out to highest precision measurable with modern instruments. 

3 minutes ago, Klaynos said:

If you've got a "theory" then use its mathematical framework to give precise numeric predictions. 

I think first you should get it right on a qualitative level and later quantify a theory. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum, if exists, disproves the mathematical framework of physics.

35 minutes ago, DrP said:

Then what leads you to believe there might be a weight reduction?

I can only assume that the predicted weight increase from elevated temperature is from increased energy of the particles? If so then this would be such a small amount that I am unsure if it would be measureable with a standard lab balance. How many dps are we talking about here? I would not trust, without calibration, that any balance of mine, 4dps or otherwise, would give exact reproducible results when subjected to temperature variations and vacuums let alone be accurate enough to look at the tiny changes predicted. I could be wrong but do not know.

My theory predicts W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum and can be found here <link removed by moderator>

(Glaser, Metrologia, 1990) used precision balance to measure micrograms changes in weight. In his experiments in air 20 grams metal rod heated by 5 degC lost 100 micrograms. I think this precision may be sufficient to find the missing weight predicted by my theory.

The results of this experiment is missing from the literature so you can't say its wrong or right without the results of the experiment.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

I think you would a need a better argument than your opinion. Why would anyone waste there time on this?

Then it is wrong.

You are right. I need better argument than opinions. I need results ! Is nobody out there interested to test conservation of mass ?

I did not do the experiment and don't have the skills to do the experiment on my own. I think this experiment should be done by professional experimentalists.

Classical physics predicts weight (W) should NOT change at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum. Relativistic physics predicts W should INCREASE at increasing T in vacuum. My theory predicts W should DECREASE at increasing T in vacuum and can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and most of the rest of #physics. Over the past ten years I contacted thousands of scientists to weigh a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results. I did Not get the results of the experiment. #ResultsRequired

I read TGA curves often require "transformations", modifications", "curve smoothing" and "other operations" before results can be interpreted. So final curves may show what you want and hide what you don't.

Rapid weight losses are often explained with evaporation. Do evaporaites account for the entire loss ? could other factors contribute for a fraction of the loss ?

To test the missing weight predicted by my theory you got to do the r i g h t experiment.

I am looking for simultaneous TGA/DSC curves of a metal in vacuum. Do you know a reference ?

The truth is the link between temperature and weight has not been thoroughly investigated and further experiments are required.

In my theory weight reduction depends on heat particles added to the sample. So in this sense it depends on the energy added to the sample rather than the temperature of the environment.

For years I tried to find scientists to do the experiment. When I was talking about the truth they were talking about unicorns and when I was talking about an experiment they were talking about nobel prizes. Do you now understand why I could not find a scientist to do the experiment ?

The balance could know how much weight to add from the temperature. For example, at 50degC add 1mg, at 100degC add 2mg...

I think the makers of the balance did not claim a nobel prize because they didn't have a theory to predict a link between temperature and weight. In their scientific mind they see it as noise.

I am not an experimentalist. I don't have the skills to set up the apparatus and electronics. This experiment should be carried out by the best experimentalists on the globe.

To distinguish between effects of temperature on balance and on sample I would heat the chamber without a sample and tell the computer this amount of change is noise, remember and correct before display every time when running the program. When a sample is heated any additional deviations from "no sample" to be displayed.

I have a couple of papers, not great and with some problems, but showing that temperature has an effect on weight. You don't have any paper showing weight does not change at increasing temperatures. Thermogravimetric graphs showing no or mild decline over a range of temperatures could be explained with insulators, materials that reflect rather than absorb heat.

Glaser thinks air-related factors contribute to the entire change in weight. He can not make this claim without showing in vacuum weight does not change at all.

Dmitriev thinks temperature decreases rate of fall. I told you in my theory rate of fall should not change.

You seem to come up with all the reasons in the world why NOT to do the experiment. I understand why. All of science is hunging on a few micrograms. A good scientist though will get on with the experiment.

The evidence for an effect of temperature on weight comes from Glaser and Dmitriev papers. Don't know how you missed it. Dmitriev et al who work in the field of precision measurements had reasons to speculate that temperature has an effect on weight. What are the reasons ? Why his results were ignored and not addressed by the scientific community ?

The graph you provided me show changes in weight of a sample. This is what you want from the machine, only weight of the sample. You don't want the machine to show temperature-dependent changes considered as noise. If I was the manufacturer I would correct noise before display to show only changes in weight of the sample. If I was the consumer I would also like a simple display with noise corrected. Are you sure the final graph is not being modified in any way before display ?

If you are not going to look for the missing weight predicted by my theory you will never find it. According to science it is not there.

I have just spent a few hours more looking for thermogravimetric results showing weight of heated metals does not change at increasing temperatures. Sorry, can't find it. Can you please help ?