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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Nuthin' goin' on here but the trollin'

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.

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

As for this thread:

#TrollBetter

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?

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.

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.