Posted: Apr 20, 2018 8:57 am
by newolder
Yaniv wrote:
newolder wrote:Your linked source includes:

In traditional physics W=mg. Since mass is conserved and gravity is a constant, weight should Not change at increasing temperature in vacuum. 

I have no idea what you mean by “traditional physics”. When a solid is heated, internal energy increases up to ionisation temperatures when electrons are liberated. An increase in internal energy causes an increase in mass (Recall E = mc2)- e.g. a compressed spring is heavier than a relaxed spring - until ionisation temperatures are reached.

If your “theory” predicts something other then it is not a theory of the world we inhabit.

The term "traditional physics" refers to classical physics which predicts W should Not change at increasing T in vacuum and relativistic physics which predicts W should increase tiny immeasurable bit (i.e. No change) at increasing T in vacuum.

Your terminology is confusing. Mixing classical and relativistic physics is a mistake. Relativistic changes are calculable to high accuracy and do not represent "No change". 3 errors in 1 sentence, let's see how the rest works out...
I searched the literature and found several papers measuring W reduction at increasing T in air.

It's usual to reference and quote sources. Were these changes attributed to evaporation, ionisation or something else?
I have Not seen any paper measuring W does Not change at increasing T as predicted by traditional physics.

Your definition of "traditional physics" is errant and capitalising "Not" in mid sentence is unnecessary.