King Or Clown ?

[YanivStern]

Classical physics predicts weight should NOT change at increasing temperatures and relativistic theory predicts weight should increase tiny immeasurable bit at increasing temperatures. My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperatures. I searched the literature and found several papers showing weight of heated metals indeed DECREASES at increasing temperatures (M Glaser 1990 Metrologia 27, Dmitriev 2003 Measurement Techniques 46). Glaser says AIR is responsible for changes in weight while Dmitriev thinks intrinsic temperature of metals also contribute to reduction in weight. An experiment weighing a heated metal in VACUUM could resolve the matter. Interested to test the foundations of science ?

[CraigD]

Welcome to hypography, Yaniv! :) Please feel free to start a thread in our introductions forum to tell us a about yourself – your personal interests, educational background, or whatever you’d like people to know about your.

 

As you seem interested in making at least one of two common but conventionally scientifically unsupported claims:

• that mass-energy is not conserved
  
• that inertial and gravitational mass are not always the same
  

I must caution you to carefully read our site rules, especially the one requiring claims to be backed up with links and references. Please don’t state that you’ve found published support for an idea without citing a specific article or paper that actually supports your claim, or ask others to search for evidence supporting or refuting your claims.

 

Classical physics predicts weight should NOT change at increasing temperatures and relativistic theory predicts weight should increase tiny immeasurable bit at increasing temperatures. My theory predicts weight should decrease at increasing temperatures.

What is formula for your prediction of the increase or decrease in weight of a specific metal according to Special Relativity?

 

What is the formula for your prediction of the decrease in weight according to your theory?

 

Do you have a link to an online publication of your theory? If not, can you post a good writeup of you theory in this thread?

 

I searched the literature and found several papers showing weight of heated metals indeed DECREASES at increasing temperatures (M Glaser 1990 Metrologia 27, Dmitriev 2003 Measurement Techniques 46). Glaser says AIR is responsible for changes in weight while Dmitriev thinks intrinsic temperature of metals also contribute to reduction in weight.

As you note, Metrologia 27, 1990: M Gläser: Response of Apparent Mass to Thermal Gradients (abstract only available free at IOPScience here, subscription of payment required for full text) and Measurement Techniques, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2003: Dmitriev, Nikushchenko, Snegov: INFLUENCE OF THE TEMPERATURE OF A BODY ON ITS WEIGHT (full text available free at springernet here) both explain the reduction in weight (also called apparent mass) with conventional science. The latter doesn’t contain the word “intrinsic”.

 

An experiment weighing a heated metal in VACUUM could resolve the matter. Interested to test the foundations of science ?

Without knowing your theory, I can’t say. If it makes any sense to me, I might be interested in considering experimental tests of its prediction

 

PS: What does the thread title, “king of clown?” have to do with the thread’s subject?

[YanivStern]

An experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum must be carried out to test a fundamental prediction of traditional physics.

 

My theory can be found at link below

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:Magnetic_Universe_Theory_Of_Science

[URAIN]

An experiment weighing a heated metal in vacuum must be carried out to test a fundamental prediction of traditional physics.

 

My theory can be found at link below

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:Magnetic_Universe_Theory_Of_Science

 

Sir, I have taken only a look on your site (I have not fully read).

 

You used the name 'positron' to elementary positive particle, Is it different than proton? What is difference in proton and positron? and you showed it to orbiting the sun. Do you explain something here in hypography.

 

I heard Light is packet of energy photon. You showed it as electron. Please explain about this.

[CraigD]

Do you have a link to an online publication of your theory? If not, can you post a good writeup of you theory in this thread?

My theory can be found at link below

http://peswiki.com/index.php/Review:Magnetic_Universe_Theory_Of_Science

Thanks, Yavin – your Pure Energy Systems wiki article nicely describes you theory. Because it’s clearly barely related to conventional particle physics (yours shares 1 particle and its antiparticle – the electron and positron – with the Standard Model of particle physics, but not the other 15, and appears to have no force-carrying particles (bosons)), I’ve moved this thread to the Alternative Theories forum.

 

Since you’ve not made any quantitative predictions, I assume you’ve not created exact or approximate mathematic models based on your theory. My intuitive meta-theoretical prediction is that when you do, you’ll discover that the simplicity gained by having only 2 particles is more than lost by the ad-hock forces that will be necessary to allow configurations of positrons and electrons to form stable particles, such as [imath]e^+ + e^- + w^+ \to p^+[/imath]. This work sounds like fun – in my experience, the easiest approach to it is to write computer simulation programs, introducing various velocity changing algorithms until the expected configuration become possible – if you’ve written such programs, I’d appreciate you posting them as a starting point for me and others who might be interested in working on this.

 

The most obvious problem I can see with your as yet math-free theory is its description of light as consisting of electrons, rather than the Standard Model’s photon. Electrons are charged, and thus are deflected by magnetic fields, as is shown by experiment and common place machines, such as CRTs. Light is not deflected by magnetic fields, which the SM explains by photons having 0 charge. I can’t imagine you I could explain the failure of a beam of light, such as from a laser pointer of flash light, by a magnetic field, such as from a permanent magnet.

 

Rather than focusing on obvious problems like this, though, I think you’re interested in making and testing predictions of your theory. Your theory predicts that the net force toward the center of the Earth – what’s classically called gravity, but because your theory is so unconventional, I think better to explicitly call “toward the center of the Earth” – decreases as atomic matter is heated. You’ve suggested attempting to measure this effect, removing the effect of air pressure on a test mass by putting it in a vacuum, is a good test.

 

I agree this is a pretty easy experiment to do, but would suggest you abandon it for now in favor of an even easier one. According to your theory, when a material is heated, it gains negative charge by gaining electrons. Because the magnetic force on a test mass with a net charge is much (about 10³⁶ times) greater than the apparent gravitational force, this effect should be much easier to measure.

 

For example, a pair of 0.1 kg masses of aluminum separated from one another by r = 0.1 m, heated or cooled until each aluminum atom in them has 1 more or fewer electron, is given by Coulomb's law

 

[math]F = k_e \frac{q_1q_2}{r^2}[/math]

 

[imath]q_1 = q_2 = \frac{0.1\,\text{kg Al}}{1}[/imath][imath]\cdot \frac{1 \,\text{atom Al}}{27 \,\text{AMU}}[/imath][imath]\cdot \frac{1 \,\text{AMU}}{1.66 \times 10^{-27} \,\text{kg}}[/imath][imath]\cdot \frac{1.60\times 10^{-19} \,\text{C}}{1 \,\text{elemental charge}} \dot= 356800 \,\text{C}[/imath]

 

and the Coulomb constant [imath]k_e \dot= 8.99 \times 10^{9} \,\text{N m}^2\text{/C}^2[/imath]

 

so [imath]F \dot= 1.14 \times 10^{23} \,\text{N}[/imath], a gigantic force, about equivalent to twice the weight of the Moon!

 

As your theory explains that the melting of a solid into a liquid is due to its atoms gaining electrons, if it’s correct, it should be possible to create this gigantic force by melting 2 small pieces of aluminum on an ordinary kitchen stovetop. I’ve personally done this many times to make small cast aluminum parts and ornaments, and not seen any repulsive force effects at all.

 

Were your theory correct, Yavin, it seems to me that melting nearly anything would cause a huge explosion.

 

Though your theory offers some fun-sounding modeling challenges, as a physical theory, it doesn’t seem to me to have any promise, as almost every easily testable prediction I can make with it is dramatically contradicted by everyday experimental evidence. Despite the work you appear to have put into it, Yavin, I recommend you abandon it. :thumbs_do

[YanivStern]

This thread is about a crucial scientific EXPERIMENT to test the most basic foundation of physics - conservation of matter. Has this thread been removed from Physics and Mathematics Forum to Alternative Theories Forum to hide the experiment from the scientific establishment ?

Do you recognise if weight decreases at increasing temperatures in vacuum (in air it does!) F=ma is disproved and all of physics collapses ?

I do not have the skills to develop computer simulations. But many people out there do. If traditional physics is disproved, I am sure many will try to develop computer simulations for my theory.

In my theory light does not bend in a magnetic field because it consists of very fast electrons (fast electrons deflect less than slow electrons) and heating two pieces of aluminium on a kitchen stove may not show a repulsive force because polar atoms (or nuclears) are not aligned with a direction (alighed in all directions).

[CraigD]

This thread is about a crucial scientific EXPERIMENT to test the most basic foundation of physics - conservation of matter. Has this thread been removed from Physics and Mathematics Forum to Alternative Theories Forum to hide the experiment from the scientific establishment ?

No, for 2 reasons:

• The Physics and Mathematics Forum is intended for the discussion of established physics theories and math. Threads discussing “non-mainstream science but still with scientific reasoning” should be started in this Alternative Theories forum. If started elsewhere, when it becomes apparent to a moderator or administrator that the thread is not discussing mainstream science, it’ll be moved to the Alternative Theories forum.
  
• Hypography is not a journal for sharing ideas or requesting help from “the scientific establishment.” It’s a forum for people of all educational backgrounds and levels to discuss scientific ideas in a friendly, enjoyable way. If you want to propose scientific experiments to established scientists or institutions, I recommend you contact them directly.
  

 

Do you recognise if weight decreases at increasing temperatures in vacuum (in air it does!) F=ma is disproved and all of physics collapses ?

I disagree.

 

The second of Newton’s three law of motion, commonly written Force = Mass • Acceleration, is a definition. In essence, it allows physicists to understand one another when they the terms force, mass, and acceleration. In other words, it establishes a conventional used of these terms. Although only an approximation of classical mechanics extended by Relativity, it is useful for many calculations.

 

Your theory doesn’t appear to suggest that the three laws of motion are invalid, but rather that his law of universal gravitation, which states that gravity is an attractive force between all bodies in the universe, given by the formula [imath]\text{Force} = \frac{\text{Mass}_1 \text{Mass}_2}{r^2}[/imath]. You theory appears to state that most matter in the universe has a significant net positive charge (that is, is cationic), so most bodies exert a repulsive force on one another, but that the Earth has a smaller positive charge because it has a hot mantle, (because your theory states that increased temperature causes usually cationic matter to gain electrons), so exerts a smaller repulsive force on bodies, thich are thus “pushed by the stronger force towards the weaker force.”

 

I do not have the skills to develop computer simulations. But many people out there do.

Many people, myself included, do, and enjoy writing strange simulations. In these forums, however, we’re doing so recreationally, so won’t be inclined to if you appear to be an internet troll set on “disproving” science about which you appear to lack even an introductory understanding.

 

If you’d like to work on a simulation of, for example, 2 positrons and 1 electron forming a stable configuration with net charge +e, by introducing strange force interactions, I or others might help you to learn how, and even do much of the work for you. If you insist that this must be an important breakthrough overturning conventional science, however, I personally will consider you a sort of troll, and not participate in threads on the subject.

 

If your posts badly violate our site rules, I’ll suspend your posting privileges.

 

In short, don’t be unpleasant!

[YanivStern]

F=ma is like W=mg. If weight changes at different temperatures you get two constants on one side of the equation and a variable on the other, disproving this equation.

Secondly, say you weigh a sample at 25degC. To find mass of sample you divide weight by gravity and from this you find density and allocate masses to all subatomic particles and astronomical objects. What would happen if you weighed your sample at a different temperature ? You would get completely different masses.

 

Over the past few years I contacted many scientists, universities, journals and societies to do the experiment. Some said weight does NOT change at different temperatures (without experiments to support their claim) and others said weight changes is not a significant problem to physics. Most just did not reply at all. I posted this thread with a hope someone out there will do this most important of experiments.