Experiment to test W=mg

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#41  Postby LucidFlight » Apr 20, 2018 10:15 am

newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees. No attempt is made to counteract the forces described by your wibble, but relativistic effects explain the required increases in mass/energy of the beams, so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Image
OFFICIAL MEMBER: QUANTUM CONSTRUCTOR CONSCIOUSNESS QUALIA KOALA COLLECTIVE.
User avatar
LucidFlight
RS Donator
 
Name: Kento
Posts: 10563
Male

Country: UK/US/AU/SG
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#42  Postby Yaniv » Apr 20, 2018 10:27 am

newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

W reduction at increasing T disproves this statement.
newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Held by strong magnetic fields.
User avatar
Yaniv
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Yaniv Stern
Posts: 33

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#43  Postby newolder » Apr 20, 2018 10:35 am

Yaniv wrote:
newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

W reduction at increasing T disproves this statement.

Other way around. The data disproves "W reduction at increasing T".
T≈(1e5eV)∗(1.6e-19joule/eV)/(1.38e-23joule/K)
...
T≈1e9K.
Within a couple of orders of magnitude of the transverse temperature, slightly smaller than the transverse temperature at the IP where there's greater transverse pressure but slightly larger elsewhere. – Peter Morgan Feb 20 '15 at 16:08

physics stack exchange source

newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Held by strong magnetic fields.

see LucidFlight above. :roll: The calculations of the required strength of the magnetic fields has 0 relation to your wibble.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6402
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#44  Postby scott1328 » Apr 20, 2018 10:36 am

Image
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 8485
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#45  Postby Yaniv » Apr 20, 2018 12:34 pm

newolder wrote:
Yaniv wrote:
newolder wrote:Yaniv, The proton bunches in the LHC are at temperatures around 1 billion Kelvin degrees.

W reduction at increasing T disproves this statement.

Other way around. The data disproves "W reduction at increasing T".
T≈(1e5eV)∗(1.6e-19joule/eV)/(1.38e-23joule/K)
...
T≈1e9K.
Within a couple of orders of magnitude of the transverse temperature, slightly smaller than the transverse temperature at the IP where there's greater transverse pressure but slightly larger elsewhere. – Peter Morgan Feb 20 '15 at 16:08

physics stack exchange source

newolder wrote:so how is it that those protons do not rise to the top of the vacuum tube?

Held by strong magnetic fields.

see LucidFlight above. :roll: The calculations of the required strength of the magnetic fields has 0 relation to your wibble.

Is T a measure of particle velocity ?
User avatar
Yaniv
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Yaniv Stern
Posts: 33

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#46  Postby newolder » Apr 20, 2018 12:53 pm

Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

T is thermodynamic temperature and measured in Kelvin degrees of hotness. Root mean square kinetic energy is a determining factor in thermodynamic temperature and mass behaves relativistically under LHC conditions.

For example, you have W = mg - f(T) such that things weigh less at elevated temperature. At the LHC both m and T increase with speed in such a manner that W (the force required to maintain proton beam circulation) increases as beam energies increase, i.e. opposite to your (falsified) notion.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6402
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#47  Postby Yaniv » Apr 20, 2018 1:19 pm

newolder wrote:
Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

T is thermodynamic temperature and measured in Kelvin degrees of hotness. Root mean square kinetic energy is a determining factor in thermodynamic temperature and mass behaves relativistically under LHC conditions.

For example, you have W = mg - f(T) such that things weigh less at elevated temperature. At the LHC both m and T increase with speed in such a manner that W (the force required to maintain proton beam circulation) increases as beam energies increase, i.e. opposite to your (falsified) notion.

In my theory T is an atomic and macroscopic property of matter and protons do not have T so this does not falsify my theory.
User avatar
Yaniv
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Yaniv Stern
Posts: 33

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#48  Postby newolder » Apr 20, 2018 1:22 pm

Yaniv wrote:
newolder wrote:
Yaniv wrote:...
Is T a measure of particle velocity ?

T is thermodynamic temperature and measured in Kelvin degrees of hotness. Root mean square kinetic energy is a determining factor in thermodynamic temperature and mass behaves relativistically under LHC conditions.

For example, you have W = mg - f(T) such that things weigh less at elevated temperature. At the LHC both m and T increase with speed in such a manner that W (the force required to maintain proton beam circulation) increases as beam energies increase, i.e. opposite to your (falsified) notion.

In my theory T is an atomic and macroscopic property of matter and protons do not have T so this does not falsify my theory.

Ah, you are attempting to use Humpty Dumpty language. In that case can a moderator move this topic to pseudoscience, please? :popcorn:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6402
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#49  Postby Yaniv » Apr 20, 2018 1:46 pm

Ah, you are attempting to use Humpty Dumpty language. In that case can a moderator move this topic to pseudoscience, please? :popcorn:[/quote]
Are physicists lost their appetite for experiments ? #ResultsRequired
User avatar
Yaniv
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Yaniv Stern
Posts: 33

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#50  Postby BlackBart » Apr 20, 2018 1:54 pm

#ItsNotScientistRemitToProveTheArseGravyOfRandomStrangersOnTheInternetWrong

#LearnAboutHowTheBurdenOfProofFuckingWorks
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11688
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#51  Postby newolder » Apr 20, 2018 2:01 pm

Yaniv wrote:...
Are physicists lost their appetite for experiments ? #ResultsRequired

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking here but, as far as I can read, physicists continue to have an appetite for experiment:
https://www.microcapobserver.com/a-disc ... le/2310220
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6402
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#52  Postby laklak » Apr 20, 2018 2:19 pm

Well, there is that whole LHC thingy.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 19645
Age: 65
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#53  Postby newolder » Apr 20, 2018 2:25 pm

Yes, laklak, that's why I posted the link immediately above... Should I have posted this, or the associated arxiv, instead?
https://lhcbproject.web.cern.ch/lhcbpro ... 8-004.html

ETA Hints of physics beyond the Standard Model and all that jazz.
An excess is found over the background-only hypothesis with a significance of 3.4 standard deviations.

Who knows? Perhaps this one will get stronger with more data from this year's experiments. :dunno:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6402
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#54  Postby Sendraks » Apr 20, 2018 2:43 pm

laklak wrote:Another future Nobel winner posts first in RatSkep!!

Amazing how many of those we get here.

Future Nobel prize winners always.

1 - confuse "having an idea" with actually having a theory.
2 - appear not to know to use the word hypothesis instead.
3 - think they can randomly e-mail scientists to demand they do "the science."
4 - don't understand why scientists won't respond to their demands.
5 - don't seem able or wiling to perform their own experiments.
6 - when ignored by the Nobel committee, come here as apparently RatSkep is like the supreme court of appeals for scientific "genius" ignored by the rest of the world.
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion." - Arthur C Clarke

"'Science doesn't know everything' - Well science knows it doesn't know everything, otherwise it'd stop" - Dara O'Brian
User avatar
Sendraks
 
Name: D-Money Jr
Posts: 15139
Age: 103
Male

Country: England
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#55  Postby THWOTH » Apr 20, 2018 6:47 pm

Thommo wrote:But to be clear, you're saying the Earth has a large net positive charge that would attract all electrons, yes?

So for example, you could test your theory by buying an ordinary compass and seeing if it constantly tries to point downwards.
Yaniv wrote:Classical physics predict weights (W) should NOT change at increasing temperature (T) in vacuum. Relativistic physics predicts W should INCREASE at increasing T in vacuum. My theory predicts W should DECREASE at increasing T in vacuum and can be found here yaniv-stern.webnode.com. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves conservation of mass and most of the rest of physics. Over the past ten years I contacted thousand of scientists to weigh a heated metal in vacuum and publish the results. I did NOT get the results of the experiment. #Results Required.
laklak wrote:Another future Nobel winner posts first in RatSkep!!

:lol: debunked before breakfas!
"No-one is exempt from speaking nonsense – the only misfortune is to do it solemnly."
Michel de Montaigne, Essais, 1580
User avatar
THWOTH
RS Donator
 
Name: Penrose
Posts: 37086
Age: 54

Country: Untied Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#56  Postby Thommo » Apr 20, 2018 10:09 pm

Ok, so one last go at this. This time with a paint picture!

Yaniv, this is the picture from the Gravity section of your hypothesis:
Image

This is in fact in self-contradiction with what you call your "theory". Here's why, and how you can test it with a very easy experiment in your own home (which might explain why you're getting the reception you are from the thousands of scientists you contact). Try dropping an object from a variety of heights and timing how long it falls for.

There are three possibilities for the amount of force being exerted by these net positive charges of the Cosmos and of Earth on the net positive atom you depict:

Image

If the polarisation occurs in the fashion you depict, then the only case that remains is case (i). The force from the cosmos is greater than the force from the Earth. This means positive charge is pushed downwards towards the Earth. So far, so good, we could see this as something like gravity.

However, we very quickly contradict your theory in a couple of ways:

(a) The polarisation occurs exactly opposite from the way you depict (the effect on the positive P and negative E components of the atom is they respond to the same net positive from the cosmos and the Earth).
(b) Gravity has been experimentally observed to behave almost exactly in proportion to the inverse square of the distance between two objects. In (i) as a net positive moves further from Earth the repulsion of Earth gets smaller and the repulsion of the cosmos gets bigger, leading to a net increase in the force towards the Earth's surface. This is a contradiction between prediction and experiment.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26155

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#57  Postby OlivierK » Apr 20, 2018 10:47 pm

Also, on a far more basic level, in yaniv's picture, the cosmos is only on one side of the Earth. This seems problematic, to say the least.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8830
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#58  Postby OlivierK » Apr 20, 2018 10:49 pm

What I'd be interested in seeing is for yaniv to explain, assuming his model is correct, planetary orbits. As you point out, more distant planets will experience greater attraction to the Sun, and so would require far greater velocity (and thus far shorter orbital periods) to maintain orbit. I wonder if that corresponds to observed reality?
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8830
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#59  Postby Yaniv » Apr 21, 2018 12:22 am

Thommo wrote:Ok, so one last go at this. This time with a paint picture!

Yaniv, this is the picture from the Gravity section of your hypothesis:
Image

This is in fact in self-contradiction with what you call your "theory". Here's why, and how you can test it with a very easy experiment in your own home (which might explain why you're getting the reception you are from the thousands of scientists you contact). Try dropping an object from a variety of heights and timing how long it falls for.

There are three possibilities for the amount of force being exerted by these net positive charges of the Cosmos and of Earth on the net positive atom you depict:

Image

If the polarisation occurs in the fashion you depict, then the only case that remains is case (i). The force from the cosmos is greater than the force from the Earth. This means positive charge is pushed downwards towards the Earth. So far, so good, we could see this as something like gravity.

However, we very quickly contradict your theory in a couple of ways:

(a) The polarisation occurs exactly opposite from the way you depict (the effect on the positive P and negative E components of the atom is they respond to the same net positive from the cosmos and the Earth).
(b) Gravity has been experimentally observed to behave almost exactly in proportion to the inverse square of the distance between two objects. In (i) as a net positive moves further from Earth the repulsion of Earth gets smaller and the repulsion of the cosmos gets bigger, leading to a net increase in the force towards the Earth's surface. This is a contradiction between prediction and experiment.

At close proximity to earth case (ii) best describes my theory and overall push is determined by surface charges more than net positive charge.
User avatar
Yaniv
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Yaniv Stern
Posts: 33

Country: United Kingdom
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#60  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 12:33 am

Ok, so in (ii) at the Earth's surface the force of "gravity" pushes upwards, away from the Earth.

This is also easily tested at home. Drop something. If it hits the floor, then you've just falsified your theory by experiment.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26155

Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 3 guests