Experiment to test W=mg

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

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

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.

[Sensei]

7 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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

"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..

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Sensei

[DrP]

4 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

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

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.

[Yaniv]

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.

[Sensei]

14 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

Increasing T of the metal in vacuum.

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..

or.. propose something else?

 

Edited November 1, 2017 by Sensei

[Yaniv]

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

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Yaniv said:

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

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

[Yaniv]

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.

[J.C.MacSwell]

41 minutes 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.

So...your theory is "whatever the experimental results say, assuming mass decreases with increasing temperature, which I  am pretty sure it does"?

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

Electric heater or laser can do the job.

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).

 

[Strange]

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.

Edited November 1, 2017 by Strange

[Sensei]

 

18 minutes ago, Strange said:

Rather than heating the sample, it is probably easier to allow it to cool. 

Very good idea.

 

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

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.

Slightly correction needed..

~ 4.184 J/K*g * 1000 g * 100 K = 418400 J / c^2 = ~ 4.65 * 10^-12 kg = ~ 4.65 * 10^-9 g

 

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

Slightly correction needed..

~ 4.184 J/K*g * 1000 g * 100 K = 418400 J / c^2 = ~ 4.65 * 10^-12 kg = ~ 4.65 * 10^-9 g

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

[Sensei]

5 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

Lucky Janiv..

 

[DrP]

4 minutes ago, Strange said:

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

Yep - but that is still beyond the capabilities of my most accurate lab balance.   let alone getting it into a vacuum.

[Yaniv]

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.  

[Strange]

8 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

What power is up to experimentalists who do the experiment.  

That is not how science works.

[Yaniv]

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. 

[DrP]

13 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

 Place a precision balance and a thermocouple in a vacuum chamber.

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

[Strange]

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.

[Yaniv]

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.

[DrP]

Just now, Yaniv said:

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

...how many people do you know with a 6 DP balance?   Quick search reveals they are well over 10 grand. Why would anyone purchase one to test a flawed theory - as pointed out above, there is a lot of gobledy gook on your site that is just plain wrong, so why would people invest to test an idea which proves nothing anyway?

Your Ph.D. is in Biology right?

[Strange]

2 minutes ago, Yaniv said:

I bet your calculations are wrong.

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.

[DrP]

1 minute ago, Strange said:

 It is wrong because it is based on nonsense and its conclusion violates conservation laws. .

This here is why no-one is taking you up on your idea to do the experiment.

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, DrP said:

Your Ph.D. is in Biology right?

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