Strange

You are the one talking nonsense. You start of from the fact you don't understand physics and therefore it must be wrong. How stupid and arrogant is that attitude? You then invent a load of nonsense about positrons and electrons which not only ignores basic physics (not surprising as you don't know anything) but defies logic. And you expect people to take you seriously and help you with a pointless experiment. But I agree with DrP, send me €20K and I will look into it. That is for the initial investigation to find out if the experiment is feasible. If it is, I will require another €100K to continue with the next 6 month part of the project. This could take several year but if you have a few million Euros to spare, we should be good to go. BTW, how's the weather in Leeds?

But judging from the opening sentence on his website, he doesn't understand biology either.

As you are incapable of doing any calculations, this is a very silly comment. However, no betting is needed regarding your theory. It is wrong because it is based on nonsense and its conclusion violates conservation laws. There is nothing else to say.

And, of course, the temperature needs to measured to a similar level of accuracy (which is probably even harder). But given the nonsense that this "theory" is based on, it obviously isn't worth anyone wasting time on. Yaniv hasn't even attempted to defend his fairy tales about electrons and positrons. Not surprisingly. It is indefensible.

"I'm not saying it's scattering but ... it's scattering."

That is not how science works.

Doh. Of course. Thanks for the correction. That makes it a million times easier to measure!

Rather than heating the sample, it is probably easier to allow it to cool. So if we consider a sealed container with 1kg of water (which has a large specific heat) and heat it up to 100C and allow it to cool to 0C. This will create a mass decrease of about 4x10-15 grams (4 femtogram). I don't know if that would be measurable or not.

It occurs to me that (approximately) scattering is an effect related to individual particles (whether atoms, dust or flaws in a material) while refraction, reflection and diffraction depend on the bulk properties of a material. Does that help you see the difference? Not really, because refraction, and the others, can be described in terms of photons interacting with atoms as well. I'm not sure why you think that scattering is more fundamental. It is just one type of interaction.

Seriously. Photons cannot be accelerated and "packet of energy" is a pretty poor pop-sci description. But it is in line with you just making stuff up as usual.

The fact that mass-energy is conserved proves your theory wrong. The fact that your web-page is filled with made-up nonsense proves your theory wrong (or "not even wrong"). #MathsRequired

It is true. Interaction causes scattering. That doesn't mean that all interactions are scattering. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent Refraction implies a change in direction, something can't change direction without any form of interaction. When you talk about particles, interaction causes refraction. Reflection implies a change in direction, something can't change direction without any form of interaction. When you talk about particles, interaction causes reflection. Diffraction implies a change in direction, something can't change direction without any form of interaction. When you talk about particles, interaction causes diffraction. But not all interaction is scattering. Not all interaction is refraction. Not all interaction is reflection. Not all interaction is diffraction. I don't know how else to help you see your error. But just in case: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

Can you? Please provide a reference for this.

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.

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. 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.

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.

If it is so simple, you do it.

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

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 think you would a need a better argument than your opinion. Why would anyone waste there time on this? Then it is wrong.

A black hole doesn't suck all light. It prevents light escaping, which isn't quite the same thing. We can see stars orbiting the black hole at the centre of our galaxy so it isn't sucking all their light. Also, "observable universe" isn't a description of things that are visible around us it is about the greatest distance lighten reach us from. So black holes and dark matter cannot be seen but they are still in the observable universe (if they are less than 47 billion light years away).

What Studiot is showing (mathematically) is that however long the sequence of flips is, it is possible (50:50) that the next one will be a tail.Therefore there is no upper limit to the number of headless flips. You could flip from now until the end of the universe, and beyond, and get tails every time. And the one after that could be tails as well.

That is not really a matter for believe (nothing in science is, or should be). However, the evidence seems to show that dark matter has been around for as long as matter. (Which allows us to skip over the dubious "created" question.) That is an odd argument. Particle colliders have a long history of detecting things that we didn't know existed. Science in generals a long history of discovering things that were previously unknown. Some things are hard to detect. It took years to detect Neptune after its gravitational effect was detected. It took decades before neutrinos were detected. It took more decades before the Higgs boson was detected. This detection time will, inevitably, tend to increase in future (because we have detected the things that are easy to detect). But not detecting things can be as important as detecting them. Some versions pf supersymmetry have been eliminated, for example, by the failure to detect the predicted particles. Of course. That is why people are looking for new physics (with the LHC, in cosmology, etc). Unfortunately, nearly everything remains annoyingly consistent with current physics. I don't understand. What is "the world the LHC has created"? I don't know what to make of that. It is just such a bizarrely illogical argument. It is the sort of thing typically said by Creationists - or people who have just written a book. Has he just written a book? (I haven't watched the video, maybe he makes a more rational argument in that.)

As you can't accelerate a photon, that still doesn't seem to apply. I suppose you could go a step further to define kinetic energy as: "the intrinsic energy of a massless particle". But then you are back to your habit of redefining words to match your opinions.

There aren't any. Assuming you mean cosmological red-shift. If you just mean Doppler shift, then that is only going to tell you how fast the star is moving relative to us.