Experiment to test W=mg

Discussions on astrology, homeopathy and superstition etc.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#61  Postby Yaniv » Apr 21, 2018 4:00 am

Thommo wrote: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.

Atoms and nuclei in objects at close proximity to earth are strongly polar and pushed down more strongly than up.
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

#62  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 4:04 am

I found another home experiment that can be conducted to see if ordinary objects have a net charge:

Image
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#63  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 4:09 am

Yaniv wrote:
Thommo wrote: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.

Atoms and nuclei in objects at close proximity to earth are strongly polar and pushed down more strongly than up.


No, according to what you've said the polarisation would go the other way. You say that positive charges repel positive charges, and negative charges are attracted to positive charges.

If the polarisation results in the negative charges being Earth side, this means the positive of the Earth is stronger (at that distance) than the positive of the cosmos. That also means that the positive overall charge of the dielectric atom is more strongly affected by the Earth than the cosmos, meaning that Earth's "gravity" pushes upwards. These are the consequences of the things you linked to.

At this point your disagreement is with yourself.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#64  Postby Yaniv » Apr 21, 2018 7:18 am

An atom at close proximity to earth experiences stronger positive charge from earth and becomes more polar which in turn decreases the force from earth and simultaneously increases the cosmological force.
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

#65  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 8:20 am

Again: if the force of the cosmos is greater than the force of the Earth on a positive charge (which is what you're saying) then the polarisation is in the opposite direction.

And that's ignoring that you're suggesting that a polarisation on the scale of 1 × 10−10m would have a significant effect for objects that are more than 6.4 x 106m from the COM of the Earth and 4 x 1016m from the nearest star, that would be the nearest object in the "cosmos" that could be exerting this repulsive downward force.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#66  Postby newolder » Apr 21, 2018 8:27 am

Yaniv wrote:An atom at close proximity to earth experiences stronger positive charge from earth and becomes more polar which in turn decreases the force from earth and simultaneously increases the cosmological force.

How does your notion explain the observed 2 tidal bulges on Earth? Why wouldn't the dipoles of the Moon and Earth cause a single bulge between those objects? Please supply the relevant equations to calculate the effect since Humpty Dumpty speak is not fit for purpose here.

Note: The field of a dipole is proportional to r-3 as opposed to that of a monopole (e.g. Newtonian gravity field) that goes as r-2, where r is radial separation.
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6544
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#67  Postby Calilasseia » Apr 21, 2018 9:05 am

I can foresee a problem here.

If we check Kaye & Laby's Tables Of Physical & Chemical Constants with respect to the realisation of SI units, we learn that it is possible, with careful measurement, to determine a mass of the order of 1 kg to around 1 part in 109, which sounds fairly impressive. However, other SI units are determinable to one part in 1012 or better. Part of the problem is that we still have to use weighing balances for mass determination, whilst the metre and the second are now defined in terms of extremely high-precision radiation at tightly defined frequencies, and stabilised lasers can push the determination of time and length, in precise work, to better than 1 part in 1015. Achieving that level of precision with mass measurements is, at the moment, beyond our remit for macroscopic objects.

Now, if we impart to, say, a 1 kg block of pure metal, enough heat energy to raise the temperature by a given amount, then that heat energy is related to temperature by the following:

E = cmT

where E is the heat energy input into the material, c is the specific heat capacity by mass, m is the mass, and T is the change in temperature from the starting temperature. So, for example, we can work out how much heat energy is needed to raise the temperature of a 1 kg cube of copper by 100 Kelvins. We do this by feeding into the above equation:

c = 385 J kg-1 K-1

m = 1 kg

T = 100 K

This gives us a value for the heat energy required of 38,500 J.

However, taking an elementary approach, we can then use E=mc2 to work out what mass change is associated with this energy, by rearranging the equation to give:

m = E/c2

Here, c is the speed of light in vacuo, which is 299,792,458 m s-1. Therefore, the mass change associated with that energy input is:

m = 38,500 ÷ (299,792,458)2 = 4.283 × 10-13 kg

Determining that this mass change has occurred, whilst eliminating any other effects that might be present, is simply beyond the remit of current instruments.

This is before we take into account, that in precise work, the specific heat capacity is not a fixed value, but is itself a function of temperature, though one that changes slowly in value therewith. For example, from here, we see that the specific heat capacity for water, decreases slightly from 0°C through to around 48°C, then starts increasing again, though unless you plot the graph with a suitable scale, the curved shape of the function is not readily apparent.

Then there's the matter of desigining an experiment to perform measurement of this change, whilst simultaneously eliminating other effects, even if the inherent mass measurement problem is solved. If it becomes possible to measure changes in mass to better than 1 part in 1015 for macroscopic objects in the future, desigining an experiment to measure mass change arising from heat energy input, whilst eliminating effects such as convection in air, is going to be time consuming, expensive, and possibly require some ingenuity.

So it's hardly surprising that there have been no reports in the literature of experiments of this sort, because at the moment, they are not possible. And that inherent mass measurement problem, is also going to impact upon any hypothesis that contains a claim about the relationship between temperature and measured mass. Anyone claiming to measure a mass change to better than 1 part in 109 can be dismissed immediately, on the basis that this simply isn't possible.

Of course, as has already been presented here at least once, experiments involving changes in measured mass due to convective forces have already been conducted, but we already know that convective forces can exert considerable macroscopic effects. Just ask any glider pilot.

Quite simply, any hypothesis involving mass changes that are of the same order of magnitude as those arising from relativistic concerns, will be untestable, because the mass changes are too small to measure with current technology, and any hypothesis involving measurable effects of this sort not arising from known effects such as convection, had better be subject to proper diligence on the experimental front, or else it'll be as discardable as creationism.
Signature temporarily on hold until I can find a reliable image host ...
User avatar
Calilasseia
RS Donator
 
Posts: 22011
Age: 57
Male

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

Ads by Google


Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#68  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 9:30 am

newolder wrote:Note: The field of a dipole is proportional to r-3 as opposed to that of a monopole (e.g. Newtonian gravity field) that goes as r-2, where r is radial separation.


In real physics, yes, of course. In Yaniv's link it appears he contradicts every single part of real physics though. I have not managed to find a single equation that would match what he's written. He clearly isn't willing to commit to Coulomb's law (despite this having numerous and easily available experimental verifications) which means that one cannot derive the inverse cubic approximation.

This is why I'm so puzzled that he insists on this one special disproof of his idea, since it appears that almost literally any physics experiment ever disproves it. If he commits to (for example) Coulomb's law, then instantly he's forced to admit that his "cosmic" and "Earth" repulsions from charges do not result in an inverse square law for apparent "gravity" and if he admits that he thinks Coulomb's law is false then he could just check the experiments for that to see that he's wrong.

The insistence that what's missing is the one true experiment that would validate his conjecture is feeling more and more like evasion of the real evidence that one would look at to actually test a hypothesis.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#69  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2018 11:49 am

Thommo wrote:Again: if the force of the cosmos is greater than the force of the Earth on a positive charge (which is what you're saying) then the polarisation is in the opposite direction.

And that's ignoring that you're suggesting that a polarisation on the scale of 1 × 10−10m would have a significant effect for objects that are more than 6.4 x 106m from the COM of the Earth and 4 x 1016m from the nearest star, that would be the nearest object in the "cosmos" that could be exerting this repulsive downward force.

And if that nearest star wasn't directly overhead, then objects would fall in directions other than down. And if your object did fall straight down, you could wait an hour, and then it wouldn't.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8895
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#70  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 11:56 am

Yep. Well, unless the Earth is the centre of the universe and the rest of the cosmos moves around in a pattern that exactly offsets all the other planets of our solar system in some spectacularly unparsimonious fashion.

That would mean that it wouldn't work for things like walking on the moon though, so I guess that would still be a falsification.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#71  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2018 12:23 pm

Nope, not even then. If you dropped an object and it fell straight down, then mine wouldn't, and vice versa. Of course, that's assuming Australia exists.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8895
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#72  Postby Yaniv » Apr 21, 2018 1:57 pm

My theory predicts W should decrease at increasing T in vacuum. W reduction at increasing T in vacuum disproves F=ma and most of the rest of physics including the constant in Coulomb's law and E=mc2. I have not found the results of the experiment in the literature and provided several references measuring W decreases at increasing T in air. You provided predictions without the results of the experiment to support your predictions. #pseudoscience
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

#73  Postby BlackBart » Apr 21, 2018 2:12 pm

Nuthin' goin' on here but the trollin'
You don't crucify people! Not on Good Friday! - Harold Shand
User avatar
BlackBart
 
Posts: 11784
Age: 57
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#74  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 2:15 pm

Two things, firstly, your "theory" predicts a lot more than just temperature increasing weight in a vacuum, and a lot of those other things have been decisively proven false by experiments.

Secondly, if you want experiment to back up things like Coulomb's law, here's an example:


Having said that, I think ending your posts with a pseudoscience hashtag isn't going to be inappropriate.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#75  Postby OlivierK » Apr 21, 2018 2:22 pm

We've still got the problem that for the cosmos to exert earthward force on a dipole, the cosmos has to be only on one side of the dipole.
User avatar
OlivierK
 
Posts: 8895
Age: 53
Male

Australia (au)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#76  Postby Thommo » Apr 21, 2018 2:30 pm

Did anyone check out some of Yaniv's videos on his site?

https://yaniv-stern.webnode.com/menu/

I rather enjoyed some of the titles, such as "King or Clown", "Revolution or Delusion", "vision of a new world order", "solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict" and "which came first the chicken or the egg".

I'm not sure that any of that's very productive though, perhaps I'd be better off inquiring about inertial mass.
User avatar
Thommo
 
Posts: 26495

Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#77  Postby SafeAsMilk » Apr 21, 2018 2:56 pm

Oh man, the Israeli-Palestinian one's gotta be pure gold, checking that out :lol:

As for this thread:

#TrollBetter
"They call it the American dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it." -- George Carlin
User avatar
SafeAsMilk
 
Name: Makes Fails
Posts: 13411
Age: 39
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#78  Postby sdelsolray » Apr 23, 2018 3:06 pm

Yaniv wrote:...
My [scientific] theory predicts....


You write on your website:

"[A] scientific theory has to be tested by experiments...."

Since you have yet to conduct experiments, why do you call your speculation or hypothesis a theory?
sdelsolray
 
Posts: 66

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#79  Postby newolder » Apr 23, 2018 3:32 pm

Also written at the site is:
So I decided to reconstruct physics using only two elementary particles, positive and negative particles, and one electric force in three dimensional volume.

Which is demonstrably false since the stuff required to make and observe that and similar websites comprises at least five entities: protons, neutrons, electrons, photons and morons. :snooty:
Geometric forgetting gives me loops. - Nima A-H
User avatar
newolder
 
Name: Albert Ross
Posts: 6544
Age: 8
Male

Country: Feudal Estate number 9
Print view this post

Re: Experiment to test W=mg

#80  Postby The_Metatron » Apr 23, 2018 3:44 pm

Yeah, that website. There’s a crackup.

“I got a PhD in Biology...”

Sure, he does. Because that’s how doctoral candidates write. I got a PhD.

So, Doctor. Show your fucking work. Exactly how did you establish that all of biological diversity is “reduced to a single cell”?

Let’s continue: “When I broke this cell further down through its constituent molecules and atoms at the sub atomic level I discovered increasing complexity with many elementary particles and forces and this did not make sense to me.”

Translation: “I don’t understand the Standard Model, so I made shit up.”

It goes downhill from there. That was only from the first three sentences.
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20635
Age: 56
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Pseudoscience

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 2 guests