DrP Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Sure - bung £20K my way and I'll start building the kit necessary to start setting it up.... Do you want me to send you a Paypal invoice? 4 minutes ago, Yaniv said: cut nonsense or better still, as you suggest, we can cut the nonsense and just not bother wasting our time.
Sensei Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 2 hours ago, Yaniv said: I guess you are not interested to do an experiment to test conservation of mass. Check out how to perform example mass-energy conservation calculation in high energy physics area, during relativistic particles collisions: http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/classes/252/particle_creation.html Lab-frame is Earth frame-of-reference. One beam of protons accelerated to relativistic velocities, in particle accelerator like CERN/LHC, hitting stationary protons/atoms. Center-of-mass frame is special FoR in which either particle moves. After collision, new particles pops out of existence for a fraction of second (if they are unstable).. Then they decay, annihilate, fly away from detector (if they're neutral like neutrino/antineutrino)..
Strange Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 (edited) 15 minutes ago, Yaniv said: Guys, cut nonsense and get results. 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? Edited November 1, 2017 by Strange
studiot Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Strange and DrP I fear you will be waiting a very long time for your £20k. I am still waiting for a reasonable and proper response to my reasonable and proper comment and question on the first page of this charade. I am also considering reporting it as not being fit for the Physics section.
Strange Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 11 minutes ago, studiot said: I am also considering reporting it as not being fit for the Physics section. I have already done that. I'm not sure there is even enough meaningful content for the Speculations forum, though.
Phi for All Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 1 hour ago, Yaniv said: Guys, cut nonsense and get results. ! Moderator Note Your idea has received constructive criticism that YOU are NOT taking on board. When an idea has flawed parts, it's time to fix those parts (which you aren't doing by insisting you're right) and see if that helps, or scrap the idea entirely. It's very poor science to build on a bad foundation, the same as it would be to build a house. If you can defend your idea (after you've corrected the mistakes that have been pointed out) with supportive evidence, you can open another thread in Speculations (since your claims are non-mainstream), but this one isn't good enough. Thread closed.
swansont Posted November 1, 2017 Posted November 1, 2017 Apologies for the addendum in a closed thread, but I see no point in having anyone open a new one: http://blogs.scienceforums.net/swansont/archives/278 The mass of an excited state of an Fe isotope was measured in the lab, and found to be greater than the mass of the ground state. So unless there is some weird physics be proposed claiming that gravity itself is temperature dependent, this falsifies the claim.
Recommended Posts