Yaniv

Experiment to test W=mg

Recommended Posts

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

Edited by Yaniv

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was your experimental set up when you measured this weight loss during temperature rise in a vacuum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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.

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

1 hour ago, Yaniv said:

W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and most of the rest of #physics.

Then it is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

I did not do the experiment and don't have the skills to do the experiment...

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.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yaniv said:

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 .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

 

 

If you have hot (spherical) body which has some temperature T,

it's emitting photons in the all directions uniformly. It's called inverse-square law.

Once photon escapes body, energy (and thus mass) of that body, must decrease.

The hotter body is, the more energetic photons are emitted.

It's called black body radiation.

Therefor it's possible to make IR thermometers working from distance. They observe (absorb) photons and analyze where is their peak and maximum.

To check if they work correctly, use traditional Mercury thermometer and IR thermometer and compare their results.

 

This process can be reversed. f.e. beam of electrons hitting body, after collision they will give body part, or all, of its kinetic energy, and mass-energy of body will be increased. Energy will spread across entire body, and temperature of body will increase, and it'll be again emitted in form of photons.

 

 

Edited by Sensei
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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

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

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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

 

Modern instrument for measuring weight is mass spectrometer. Which measures mass of quantum particles and/or their quantity and/or their charge..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_spectrometry

 

Edited by Sensei

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Conventional balances are not sensitive enough to measure the mass change effects you want to discuss.

They can be observed by mass spectrometer.

 

However as others have pointed out its more complicated than you are making out.

 

One thing to note is that photon radiation is a dynamic phenomenon.

So energy lost with escaping photons is at least partially replaced or even outwitghed by energy gained from radiatiion due to the surrounds.

 

How about a simple prediction along the lines of

"If a block of X milligrams of material A is cooled by Y degrees K then there will be a corresponding gain/loss of Z picograms of mass"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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.

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

I think this precision may be sufficient to find the missing weight predicted by my theory.

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

1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

Use the most precise balance you can find.

Don't be ridiculous. More accurate instruments cost more, are more complex to use and require more care in producing the experimental results. Why would anyone commit to excessive amounts of time and money on a whim. You need to define the minimum accuracy required to test your "theory".

 

Edited by Strange

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

You come up with all the reasons why not to do a relatively simple experiment.

If it is so simple, you do it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just had look at your website:

Quote

A simultaneous interactions between two positrons and one electron form a "proton"

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 ...

Quote

A proton and an anti-proton interact to form a "neutron". 

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.

1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

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.

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

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

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.

Perhaps you could show where the error is in Noether's theorem.

3 hours ago, Yaniv said:

Over the past ten years I contacted thousands of scientists to weigh a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results.

Just imagine if you had spent 10 years studying maths and physics. You would have learnt so much. It is pathetic to have wasted so much of your life on this.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.